Point 2: The science behind GMOs is based on the 20th century psuedoscience theory that 1 gene can only produce 1 protein, anyone that supports GMOs has to reject 21st century science. If people learned a little about biology, they would be against GMOs, but because not many people know much about biology, or even Orthodox Christianity on God and creation, people support GMOs.

Professr Goofball from the NATURE INSTITUTE (Ivy League , no doubt) concludes ” So we learn that at all levels of life – from gene to organism to environment – we need to take into account dynamic, changing relations. The ideal to control life through genetic engineering rather as we control a manmade machine begins to appear sadly one-sided. ”

Wow . SO Science-y !
Life changes stuff. Environment changes stuff. It’s unpredictable. ….Who knew?

Personally I plan to enjoy a dripping , heaping bowl of Golden Rice Krispies with my family every morning amd thank God for His provision.

Good luck tilting those Genetically Modified Windmills.

Sounds like herbicides could be a problem…how does that have ANYTHING to do with GM foods?

To my way of thinking, messing around with something God designed requires the assumption that we can somehow improve on it.

There is something Babel-like about Golden Rice.

Why do people support global warming denialism, anti-environmental sentiment, and pro-GMO policies? Corporations do it for the money. Maybe people just are ignorant on the science and don’t realize genetic modification of foods using 20th century pseudo theories is actually polluting the genetic pool? But religious Americans do it because of the belief of dualism; The material world is evil, thus we can destroy it as we please. In Orthodoxy, we teach that the material world fell, but the material world once was made good. The incarnation actually proves the Orthodox are right on this, and the destruction of the environment is a sin.

If someone is really concerned about human sacrifice, the systematic destruction of unborn babies by abortion is far more egregious than being skeptical of or opposing messing around with genetically modified crops.

I believe that side was presented by Mr. Prager.

My point was and is simply that there IS debate, and that those of us who have reservations about GM products are not all loony environmentalists.

My objections do NOT come from religious environmentalism; that is NOT my faith nor do my reservations about GM products have anything at all to do with any “secular religion”. I happen to be an Orthodox Christian.

And I am a skeptic as well. I am especially skeptical of folks who dismiss and reduce the argument to ad hominem. What, pray tell, is an “alarmist”, and how is one identified? Am I an alarmist because I care about what I feed my kids and I don’t blindly accept things just because the “experts” say them?

Your argument is more alarmist than you seem to realise. Quick! People are starving!

Never mind that there might be far-reaching consequences of the grand scheme of GM crops that, once unleashed, won’t fit neatly back into the toothpaste tube.

Feeding the hungry involves something much more complex, don’t you think? I appreciate the grand scheme and the hope behind GM products (except for the fact that somebody stands to get very rich doing it this way, which is one of the things that makes me skeptical).

But I would posit that feeding the hungry is a lot like stopping abortion. You can only address it one human being at a time.

I heard today that St. Vlad’s is hosting a Poverty Conference – May 31 – June 1 of this year. I would guess they won’t be advocating the use of GM crops; at least, I hope not. I hope their approach will be closer to some others I’ve read about. For example, Vitamin A deficiencies can be addressed by encouraging moms to breastfeed, and helping people learn how to garden. Even Americans need to do this! And that is exactly how I’ve been raising my kids — by growing fruits and vegetables in a home garden because that enables us to have a more diverse diet (and therefore create and contribute to what I would think of as REAL health care!).

I read about a home-gardening program implemented in South Africa that was integrated with nutrition education, and focused on the production of yellow and dark-green leafy vegetables. Apparently, it significantly improved the vitamin A status of 2 to 5-year-old children in a rural village in South Africa. (Faber Mieke; Phungula Michael A S; Venter Sonja L; Dhansay Muhammad A; Benadé A J Spinnler (2002). Home gardens focusing on the production of yellow and dark-green leafy vegetables increase the serum retinol concentrations of 2-5-y-old children in South Africa. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2002;76(5):1048-54.)

Yes, this approach can, I suppose, be discouraging and overwhelming, but it also provides an avenue for developing relationships, evangelism, church planting.

I didn’t say “ban GMOs”, anyway. You’re avoiding my point. I said I have reservations about them, and that I’m not an environmentalist wacko. I’m just a mom.

Who are you?

I just posted 3 other links, as well…

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11361.cfm

http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

I’ll try again, but you’re just as capable of googling the phrase and doing some of the same research I have as I consider what I will feed my family and what I won’t…

If nothing shows up… you’ll know why.

Could you give a link to some of that evidence?

“A 2012 nutritional analysis of GMO versus non-GMO corn shows shocking differences in nutritional content. Non-GMO corn contains 437 times more calcium, 56 times more magnesium, and 7 times more manganese than GMO corn.

“GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. The EPA standard for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm, and organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm.

“GMO corn contains extremely high levels of formaldehyde—about 200 times the amount found toxic to animals.

“Unfortunately, President Obama recently signed into law a spending bill that included a devastating provision that puts Monsanto above the law. The provision limits the ability of judges to stop Monsanto and/or farmers from growing or harvesting genetically engineered crops, even if courts find evidence of potential health risks.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/04/09/argentina-gmo-crops.aspx

But it isn’t just the loony environmentalists who have reservations about GMO crops, and I’m more than a little put off by you lumping anybody who has reservations into that camp.

Some of us who have reservations about GMO crops are called “moms”.

And as a mom, I have reservations about the long term, unintended consequences of GMO crops. Apparently, there exists a rather large body of evidence showing that GM crop/food production produces unintended effects, which can result in damage to health when GM foods are fed to animals, and there is no evidence to suggest that Golden Rice is any safer than these GM foods.

When pharmaceutical drugs are tested for safety, they are first tested on animals. Only if animal studies reveal no harmful effects is the drug further tested on human volunteers. If animal tests with a drug were to yield results similar to those seen in feeding studies carried out with GM foods, the drug would most likely be disqualified for further development. Golden Rice has never been subjected to feeding trials on animals. Therefore, it seems to me that it might be criminally irresponsible to test it on human beings.

Your argument sounds suspiciously close to those given for man-made global warming. You conveniently overlook the serious debate and controversy that surrounds the development of GMO crops.

There is no doubt that this article of yours was written with good intentions.

But as you pointed out, that’s not good enough.

The fact that Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew attended Pope Francis’ inaugural — the first time an ecumenical patriarch has attended a papal inaugural since the Great Schism of 1054 — illustrates Pope Francis’ love and acceptance of non-Catholics as well as Catholics.

In fact, I believe that Pope Francis’ positive, loving, and humble attributes are critical factors that will serve as a harbinger leading to the reunification of Christianity in the near future.

Christianity is united, for no real Christianity exists outise (“Eastern”) Orthodoxy. Seeking unity with the Latins or the Copts or Anglicans or anybody else is as un-Christian as it gets. Those “churches’ will never rejoin Orthodoxy as a group, instead of false “ecumenical” meetings with them we must tell them every time we see them that they are outside the Church, the only the loving thing to do. How many Anglicans died without grace because they were told by “ecumenist” Orthodox to not bother converting, since Anglicans were going to be reunited with us any day now, like a 100 years ago?

Indeed, the recognition of these policies has hindered the Anglican Church’s relationship — as well as its prospects of unity — with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Orthodox Church must now concentrate its efforts for Christian unity with the Roman Catholic Church. Only if these two churches work together harmoniously in the ensuing years will the unification of Christianity become a reality.