Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Do We Need Government Regulation to Get Rid of GMO Foods?

rated by 0 users
This post has 38 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
limitgov Posted: Sun, Nov 27 2011 3:53 PM

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2011/11/24

"Four major commodities crops in the US-- corn, cotton, canola, and soybean are now 90% GMO, and alfalfa was recently deregulated, he noted."

 

I hear so many in the alternative media talk about gmo seeds and crops and they always seem to think that a ban on gmo seeds or crops is the answer to get rid of gmo contamiation of our food supply. 

I think they know the government subsidises gmo corn, but they seem to think that if we just ended that and put the ban on gmo (changed government regulations) that is the best solution to rid our food supply of gmo.

 

In addition, they always point out, that when the government deregulates a crop, gmo contamination comes in (probably via monsanto).

 

 

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 645
Points 9,865
James replied on Sun, Nov 27 2011 5:19 PM

Oh, yeah right, like we need the government to regulate drugs...  Make the competition illegal, you mean.

Get rid of the sugar import tariffs and corn subsidies and patents...  Then choose what to eat yourself.  Don't petition the corrupt prison warden who started feeding you the frankencorn in the first place.

You can't trust the government.  Monsanto and Du Pont are owned by the same people who own the United States government.  To frame the question along the lines of "do we need the government to do x" implies that it would merely be more efficient to do it some other way.  It actually goes beyond inefficiency to ask the fox to guard the henhouse.

Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Sun, Nov 27 2011 9:50 PM

First we can slash all the government support to Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland and flatten the legal code. These psycho companies make off with a sizable goodie basket from uncle sam and have thoroughly captured the regulatory bodies. These seem to be the companies that practice GMO's. Cut them off the teat, and that would be a start. 

Secondly, flattening the legal code and having the law recognize your body as your property and your property as protected by the law would help to end harmful GMO's. Genetic modification need not be harmful to the body. There's no reason to ban it when you could just make its malpractice detrimental to corporations.

Visual Aid:

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 2:55 AM

limitgov:

"Four major commodities crops in the US-- corn, cotton, canola, and soybean are now 90% GMO, and alfalfa was recently deregulated, he noted."

I hear so many in the alternative media talk about gmo seeds and crops and they always seem to think that a ban on gmo seeds or crops is the answer to get rid of gmo contamiation of our food supply. 

I think they know the government subsidises gmo corn, but they seem to think that if we just ended that and put the ban on gmo (changed government regulations) that is the best solution to rid our food supply of gmo.

In addition, they always point out, that when the government deregulates a crop, gmo contamination comes in (probably via monsanto).

All the food we eat is GMO. Long before we had means of directly modifying DNA, we did so through selective breeding. There are crops that cannot return to the wild, domesticated plants incapable of reproducing without human help. Do you think wheat began with gigantic kernels like we have now?

Remove GMO and the planet cannot feed itself. Literally.

Sadly, there's some that would applaud the idea of a few billion people starving to death.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
limitgov replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 8:01 AM

"Sadly, there's some that would applaud the idea of a few billion people starving to death."

Are you implying that people who are against gmo crops applaud billions starving to death? 

 

There is a big difference between selective breeding and cross pollination vs GMO.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032326_selective_breeding_GMOs.html

GMO produces food that has been proven again and again to be damaging to people and animals.  The other produces food that is good for you.

 

Do you not know the difference, or are you just acting like you don't know the difference?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 508
Points 8,570

limitgov, step back a bit from the buzz words and consider the process for a moment.  Both methods involve the manipulation of the genetic code in an attempt to improve the crops for whatever purpose is desired.  Can GMO crops have qualities that are negative or dangerous to people?  Of course.  Are GMO crops inherently dangerous because of the methods used to modify the genes?  Absolutely not.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
limitgov replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 11:21 AM

"Are GMO crops inherently dangerous because of the methods used to modify the genes?  Absolutely not."

Well then, you and I disagree on that point.  They are very bad for your health.  Just google.

Naturalnews has alot of articles on gmo.

https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&safe=active&source=hp&q=gmo+bacteria+site:naturalnews.com&pbx=1&oq=gmo+bacteria+site:naturalnews.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=8758l10842l2l11097l9l9l0l0l0l0l245l1164l2.6.1l9l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=f104a9f09392b6ae&biw=1024&bih=606

 

If you don't believe them for whatever reason, there are other sources that talk about the horrible effects gmo crops have on us. 

If you don't believe in those facts, well then there's nothing more for us to debate I guess.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,945
Points 36,550

Anenome:
Remove GMO and the planet cannot feed itself. Literally.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.  That is the stupidest thing I've read on this forum, maybe ever.  I don't even know where to start with this nonsense.  Maybe this one:

Failure of Green Revolution

Terminator Genes

Drying ancient aquifers

Some alternatives:

Greening the desert

Biochar Part 1  Part 2

Permaculture

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." - Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
limitgov replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 12:29 PM

"That is the stupidest thing I've read on this forum, maybe ever."

 

Come on LaRose, dey ain't nahReason fa da name callin....come on naw....how U during....

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 12:39 PM

Best way to avoid GMO's is to not buy processed and refined foods.  Eat more organic, and hope there are some organic food stores in your area.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 12:43 PM

Remove GMO and the planet cannot feed itself. Literally.

Sadly, there's some that would applaud the idea of a few billion people starving to death.

Anenome, I love that your sig is "Cite reality and we'll talk", and I say the same to you.  This is like the argument "If we don't eat meat all the cows will overpopulate."  If you want to actually get into food production and people starving what about all the grain that's fed to cows instead of people?

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 1:26 PM

it's all bogus pseudoscience. But anyway, the problem is not GMO per se, but government control.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 2:22 AM

Bert:
Anenome, I love that your sig is "Cite reality and we'll talk", and I say the same to you.  This is like the argument "If we don't eat meat all the cows will overpopulate."  If you want to actually get into food production and people starving what about all the grain that's fed to cows instead of people?

Norman Borlaug alone saved over a billion lives from starvation with the wheat crops he developed. Perhaps you'll say those aren't GM wheat tho. But it is domesticated wheat, and what is domestication but a slower version of gene selection and insertion. Take away Borlaug's wheat and billions die.

Crying about GM crops is just the latest obsession of the neo-luddites, and will get no sympathy from me.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,945
Points 36,550

Anenome,

Yeah, right.  Breed me some of these, if it's "all the same",

That's glowing tobacco, and trademarked "Glofish".

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." - Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580

"But it is domesticated wheat, and what is domestication but a slower version of gene selection and insertion."

No its not.  GMO crops have insect genes, bacteria genes that have been inserted, along with other genes.  They are proven to be very bad for your health, unlike crops that have been cross pollinated.  And, some of the gmo crops are specifically designed to handle higher tolerances of pesticides and insecticides.  We don't need gmo crops to feed people.  You're on a free market forum for goodness sake, you should realize that its government getting in the way that starves people, not nature.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 4:32 PM

You're on a free market forum for goodness sake, you should realize that its government getting in the way that starves people, not nature.

GMO -IS- a free market solution to the food crisis. Far as I can see, those opposed to GMO are in the business of attempting to gather enough political power to force others to stop using GMO. So yes, in this case, allowing gov to block GMO would be the gov starving people.

As for me, I'm not worried about insertion of genes from other organisms. We are soon to live in a world where people are GMO, and we will adapt to it as well.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

I am very wary of GMO, as we are messing with nature, and often in matters like these the consequences only appear after a long time - especially for humans, who have isolated themselves from the natural forces of evolution and hence have no "market" (so to speak) to tell them how they're doing.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 508
Points 8,570
  • No its not.  GMO crops have insect genes, bacteria genes that have been inserted, along with other genes.

Again, get past the buzzwords.  "Insect genes" doesn't mean that the plant is going to sprout six legs or wings.  What is means is that the designers are attempting to make a plant that has Trait X.  Trait X requires Genetic Combination Y.  This genetic combination can be acheived by one of two methods.  One, waiting for a natural mutation, or searching far and wide for a plant with that genetic combination, then selectively breeding it and hoping for the best. Or two, building that genetic combination from scratch, and speeding up the natural selection process.

To do this, they select various chunks of DNA from available sources like insects, fish, etc, and use those sections to basically graft a new code.  This doesn't make the plant "part insect".  It's still 100% plant, just with a new trait.

It really is literally the same process as natural mutation, except instead of waiting for cosmic radiation or chemical damage to cause the genes to mutate, we do it ourselves.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Natural mutation is tested by ages of evolution for any adverse effects. Artificial mutation isn't. It very well might be that the new protein interacts negatively with the rest of the organism. Then again, it might not.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580

"GMO -IS- a free market solution to the food crisis."

But reality says it is not a free market solution.  Government subsidies gmo crops.  If the market wanted gmo so badly, then why does government have to subsidize it?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580

LogisticEarth, I'm starting to get what you're saying.  Interesting.  But, there are so many studies that have come out showing how harmful gmo crops are to people.

Lets just take gmo corn.  It is genetically modified to handle higher levels of insectisides and pesticides.  Surely, having more poisons on your crops is a negative result in your eyes?

And I've seen articles where smaller farmers are saying they get better crop yields with organic methods.  If that is true, and I'm not saying that particular fact is true, that is a double negative.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 8:38 AM

It doesn't. It just does (hope that make sense). Just because it subsidize it says nothing about "market intentions" so to speak. Maybe in free market there would be much more GMO products.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580

"Maybe in free market there would be much more GMO products."

Yeah, there's so so many gmo crops in the free market, that the government has to subsidize it.  And boy, the gmo corn crops have been a total success. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 10:15 AM

Where on earth is free market? Maybe black market could be closer to it.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
limitgov replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 10:30 AM

"Where on earth is free market? Maybe black market could be closer to it."

Perhaps there would be gmo crops in teh free market, but probably not.  People are avoiding them like the plague.  Even going so far as to avoid products that contain traces of them.  And right now, most gmo crops exist only because government pays for them.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 11:09 AM

And the most obvious reason people avoid it is because of mass hysteria and propaganda. It's similar to saying that mobile phones cause cancer.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
limitgov replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 11:28 AM

"It's similar to saying that mobile phones cause cancer."

are you saying gmo corn which takes in higher pesticides and insecticides is actually healthier than non gmo corn, or organic corn?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 508
Points 8,570
  • LogisticEarth, I'm starting to get what you're saying.  Interesting.  But, there are so many studies that have come out showing how harmful gmo crops are to people.

The studies I've read so far, or more accurately, the reports on the studies, (as what you find in the news isn't the actual study) usually tend to be somewhat sensationalized or inconclusive.  Still, a study that conclusively showed that certain GMO crops WERE harmful still doesn't mean the entire process/method is at fault.  Merely that they're producing a faulty product, in the same way that medical chemistry screwed up when they produced and sold thalidomide for morning sickness.

Wheylous brings up a fair point that natural selection weeds out (no pun intended) faulty or harmful code, which is true, but only to an extent.  Natural selection often yields negative traits, and excessive in-breeding can lead to chronic defects.  For example, in nature, almonds more frequently than not are posionous.  It's all about humans identifying the negative aspects and removing them through breeding, or more recently, genetic modification.

  • Lets just take gmo corn.  It is genetically modified to handle higher levels of insectisides and pesticides.  Surely, having more poisons on your crops is a negative result in your eyes?

This is, quite clearly, a problem with farming practices.  As we all know farming practices in the US have been heavily distorted by state intervention, and pushed towards more centralized/industrialized practices.  The fact that farmers want/need to use more and more pesticides and herbicides on thier crops is not a result of GMO.  Instead, GMO produces are responding to a market demand, which has been heavily skewed by US agricultural policy.  Look for the root of the problem there.

  • And I've seen articles where smaller farmers are saying they get better crop yields with organic methods.  If that is true, and I'm not saying that particular fact is true, that is a double negative.

Maybe, maybe not.  I grew up in an agricultural area and worked on some smaller farms.  The fact is that organic will work better in some areas, and chemical agriculture will work better in others.  An organic farmer in Lancaster County, PA (which has extremely rich soils and good climate) will probably out perform a non-organic farmer in the Great Plains.

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) a lot of libertarians are highly skeptical of GMO foods because thier prime manufacturers right now are mega-agribuisness like Monsanto.  And of course, Monsanto is pushing for all sorts of shady/anti-libertarian legislation, like the patenting of genes, sueing farmers for crops that have been cross-polinated with thier "propriatary formula", and seeking special privlages via the FDA and USDA.  These are all huge problems.  But at the heart of it, it's not GMO that's the issue, it's our old enemies:  Corporatism, Intellectual Property, Regulatory Capture, etc.  A classic case of statism taking a useful invention and turning against society at large.  This is the mistake leftists make all the time, I hope you guys don't make the same one with GMO.

 

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
limitgov replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 12:30 PM

"But at the heart of it, it's not GMO that's the issue, it's our old enemies:  Corporatism, Intellectual Property, Regulatory Capture, etc. "

 

I agree and well said.  You're right, sometimes I get caught up on the gmo side of it.  But, mainly because all I've read about it is negative.  It seems to be unhealthy.  And government keeps pushing for it. 

Let me ask you this, do you know of ANY gmo crop that is healthier than the non-gmo crop equivalent? 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

To op.

It is true that only government could ban GMO crops, but it is very unlikely that the government would ever ban GMO crops. The market would not be able to ban GMO crops but the consumer would still have the power to not eat GMO crops where possible. But in the USA the farming industry seems corrupted with government benefits and regulations. So there is no knowing if without government interference in the farming industry, if it would be viable to use GMO on such a large scale.

Banning GMO might be the best solution but it is not going to happen so the best approach would be to boycott GMO foods and spread the message about the hazards of it. There is also a lot of people that think that GMO are unsustainable and they only appear to be sustainable. GMO might create more efficiency in certain factors but there are detrimental effects to GMO, like increased water and pesticide use and other factors. They also think that eventually GMO has the potential to destroy certain natural species and we would become dependent on a corporation rather than have the ability to buy and keep natural seeds.

Deregulation of a crop, whatever that means, is completely unrelated to gmo contamination.


The government in this case only makes the problem of GMO worse by regulating it and this sends a sense of approval to the population, "hey this GMO sandwich is approved by the FDA, i trust the FDA!". If it was left to the market and there was competition amongst natural and gmo and the people wanted gmo then that would be their choice. But a well educated population on this topic would hopefully chose organic farming. This would prevent the GMO farms from suceeding and they would be forced to go organic, they would have to find new soil though, non infected.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Mar 5 2012 1:52 AM

limitgov:

"GMO -IS- a free market solution to the food crisis."

But reality says it is not a free market solution.  Government subsidies gmo crops.  If the market wanted gmo so badly, then why does government have to subsidize it?

It would still exist without market subsidies. They are not essential to the existence of GMO crops.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

My advice: take your health into YOUR own hands. Learn primitive skills and gather your food. Wild food is the answer.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Mar 5 2012 4:05 AM

Freedom4Me73986:

My advice: take your health into YOUR own hands. Learn primitive skills and gather your food. Wild food is the answer.

Come on. Waste of time. Of all the things to worry about, this is hardly worth your time. It would take WWIII and a nuclear war at that, to reverse our economic development. And if that happened you'd have worse things to worry about :\

Wild food? Wild food sucks. You're gonna end up like the Into the Wild guy, mistaking this plant for that plant and dying a stupid and painful death by accidentally eating a poisonous plant. Bon apetit.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

Freedom4Me73986:

My advice: take your health into YOUR own hands. Learn primitive skills and gather your food. Wild food is the answer.

Come on. Waste of time. Of all the things to worry about, this is hardly worth your time. It would take WWIII and a nuclear war at that, to reverse our economic development. And if that happened you'd have worse things to worry about :\

Wild food? Wild food sucks. You're gonna end up like the Into the Wild guy, mistaking this plant for that plant and dying a stupid and painful death by accidentally eating a poisonous plant. Bon apetit.

You say that now, but what's going to happen a few years down the road after you become sterile or develop cancer b/c of GMO? It's much better to learn to fend for yourself whether you want to rewild or not. Besides you can learn which plants are poisonous and which aren't.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Mar 5 2012 11:11 PM

Freedom4Me73986:

You say that now, but what's going to happen a few years down the road after you become sterile or develop cancer b/c of GMO? It's much better to learn to fend for yourself whether you want to rewild or not. Besides you can learn which plants are poisonous and which aren't.

So apparently we didn't have cancer or sterility before GMO, right? Let's see, Francis and Crick, 1957 I believe. No cancer prior to their discovery of DNA. Yep. That's exactly right.

You are like a man who spends his whole life climbing a ladder, only to reach the top and discover he's climbed the wrong ladder.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

Freedom4Me73986:

You say that now, but what's going to happen a few years down the road after you become sterile or develop cancer b/c of GMO? It's much better to learn to fend for yourself whether you want to rewild or not. Besides you can learn which plants are poisonous and which aren't.

So apparently we didn't have cancer or sterility before GMO, right? Let's see, Francis and Crick, 1957 I believe. No cancer prior to their discovery of DNA. Yep. That's exactly right.

You are like a man who spends his whole life climbing a ladder, only to reach the top and discover he's climbed the wrong ladder.

That doesn't mean GMO doesn't cause cancer or sterility. Look this shit up. Hunter-gatherers didn't get cancer or autism b/c they didn't have the chemicals everywhere. Do your research on H/Gs.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Mar 6 2012 12:41 AM

Hunter gatherers didn't live long enough to get cancer, lol, when you average age at death is in your 30's. We're probably going to discover eventually that some plastics are cancer causing. But the benefits of civilized living still outweight becoming a H/G.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

Hunter gatherers didn't live long enough to get cancer, lol, when you average age at death is in your 30's. We're probably going to discover eventually that some plastics are cancer causing. But the benefits of civilized living still outweight becoming a H/G.

100% wrong.

H/Gs were generally healthier, happier and lived LONGER then civilized man. Do research.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

 

Compare:

http://www.raw-food-health.net/HunterGatherers.html

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (39 items) | RSS