Barbell Shrugged

A farmer’s view: What to know about GMO

Doug Larson

Add comment

  • All, GMO is a hot button topic. It’s pretty easy to find loads of articles punching from both sides. As always, look into all vantage points and make a choice that you yourself are comfortable with. If we have a bias, it’s that local, farm fresh food is probably best. Dig around for yourself.

  • Out of curiosity, does this line of thinking take into account that the country may not have enough food if we don’t find ways to enhance production and shelf life? Just curious and not trying to start an argument. I’m a Kinesiology major at Penn State and not a nutritionist or farmer so this is just interesting to me.

    Thanks for all the reading material while at work!

    • Check out the current status of corn supply in this country …. We are currently producing and storing so much GMO corn that the government doesn’t know what to do with it . Also would love to see the research in the “health benefits of GMO foods ” please post IF they are out there

  • perfect timing around the holidays ! But with crossfit and a set of new weights I’ll be ok . Here’s my question: what does a person on a budget do when organic food is just too expensive?!

  • It’s hard to fathom that the human body would not have long-term adverse effects to “protein modifications” found in their nutrition sources, although I cannot claim to be an expert.
    Look at what has happened to the animals who are the “guinea-pigs” for this experiment, the bovine population has seen serious side-effects caused by their eating corn feed and not pasture raised on good ol’ mother nature’s green grass.
    I’d like to know differences in hybrid crop modifications versus “scientific protein creations”.
    There are so many benefits to the Community Supported Agriculture, helping local Farmers, reducing the transportation carbon footprint and eating foods that are cleaner and healthier all around.

  • I expected much more from barbell shrugged. You guys have been in the past a good source of sound science backed information. Now it just looks like you are trying to fill column space. Anytime you use the words “big pharma” or “big agriculture” you are inherently biasing your argument, towards fear and doubt. At least talk about the science of GMO and not some touchy feely junk that has no basis in reality.

    • Mal,

      The opportunity to open up your mind lies within you, find out more info on GMO’s. Fear and doubt isn’t what many of us know already; some unethical meddling in the cattle industry has caused serious issues i.e. Mad Cow Disease (BSE).
      I love National Geographic, their position seems a little sympathetic to Monsanto, but I read this article and devour the information without bias. I have also heard about Monsantos practices that have been anti Farmer and to me a bit monopolistic.
      Would love to see you add something to the conversation tho?

  • Christopher

    I’m not trying to argue just for the sake of arguing. All I wanted to point out originally was that there is 2 sides to every argument, and this article is heavily biased towards one side. There is plenty of research peer reviewed – that comes to the opposite side of this discussion about GMO.
    Ethics is subjective. Everyone will have their own perspective. If there’s solid evidence that is backed up by repeated experiments that GMO is bad, I’ll go that way. Likewise if there is repeated experiments that says GMO is harmless and is beneficial, I’ll support that argument. The scientific method is the only one that gets us to the bottom of this debate. Not arguments about profit motives or what feels right

    • No argument here, just wanted to kno if you can give me some other leads to balance the discussion. I am looking for more POV

  • @Mal
    It’s funny there is no science because Monsanto wont release their product to 3rd party research. We’re just supposed to trust them that they did their research!

      • That article has all the same flaws that this article has… a bunch of insinuation but without presenting any substantive argument. The first figure has nothing to do with the health effects of GMOs. The second figure addresses Monsanto’s financial which, believe it or not, has nothing to do with the health effects of GMOs in general. I think two main issues contribute to irrational fear of GMOs: 1) naturalistic fallacy and 2) Association of GMOs with a disreputable business (Monsanto).

        People want to believe that they can associate some conception of natural with good or healthy. This is completely illogical. It is pleasing and comforting to think that one way of eating is in some way morally or healthfully superior to another, but the truth is that this is not the case. This is a hard but necessary pill to swallow.

        People should be focused on the facts relating to these issues, not their ideological assumptions. Nutritive content, macronutrient ratios, and caloric density are all pieces of information that could be considered beyond the inherent bias of our subjective judgement. The interesting thing about GMOs is they actually modify existing biological structures in a novel way to produce or enhance traits in organisms. Often, this actually allows farmers to use less external chemicals. But, I digress, as this is more of a philosophical argument than a physical one.

        Is it necessary to conduct the proper scientific testing to ensure that GMOs pose no significant health risks? Yes. Should GMO products be labeled? Yes. But none of these questions actually indicate that GMOs in and of their own right are innately bad. So stop acting like GMOs are a government conspiracy to kill you.

Your Cart