GMOs and Vaccinations

[amichel]

I am confused...was your link part of the 2,000 articles that prove there is no factual evidence for the GMO safety?
I got bored reading dumb articles for my class so decided to poke my head into some of ones on the excel file.
This reminds me of that time I read a separate article that said about 75% of research is flawed and draws the wrong conclusions...
Here is what I perused in no special order.. Needless to say I got bored quickly, about this extraordinary magical number: 2,000, of the studies that "show" evidence its safe.

also watch this video, its pretty funny, all things aside:


“Scientists do not have full knowledge of the risks and benefits of any insect management strategies. Bt plants were deployed with the expectation that the risks would be lower than current or alternative technologies and that the benefits would be greater. Based on the data to date, these expectations seem valid.” - Annual Review of Entomology



“…any reasonable formulation of the precautionary principle will imply a value judgement that no rational decision‐maker would be prepared to accept” - Talking Point


An allegory on a precautionary principle…..




“Eucalyptus genetically engineered for freeze tolerance and targeted for introduction as a biomass crop in forest plantations in the Southeastern USA exemplifies a transgenic biofeedstock crop where the risk assessment focuses on the invasiveness of the whole plant……..


As a strategy for the management of risk associated with the field testing of the transgenic hybrid, further genetic modification for control of pollen flow is envisioned”


LoL that one made me laugh. We need to still do more genetic modification in order to test this awesome risk assessment we put forward.


- Advancing environmental risk assessment for transgenic biofeedstock crops



A hypothetical risk assessment article.







“Whether the detrimental effects of the toxic compounds on predators are indirectly mediated solely by the quality of the sick prey, or mediated directly by the intake of the toxin by the predator is not clear from this study.”


Spider mites de-activate or degrade the protein into a non-toxic form. Further studies are being conducted to investigate what happens to the toxin when it is ingested by different herbivores.”


- we don’t deactivate the Bt toxin….hmmm… I don’t think these are great model organisms for this study.Something to consider.


- Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperla carnea



“The C3 concentration proved highly toxic to host larvae, so only host-mediated effects of C1 and C2 concentrations on the parasitoid C. marginiventris were studied. As expected, purified Cry1Ab affected survival, developmental times, and growth rates of S. frugiperda larvae at all three Cry1Ab concentrations.”


- Impact assessment of Bt-maize on a moth parasitoid, Cotesia marginiventris (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), via host exposure to purified Cry1Ab protein or Bt-plants






This could not be more false. And I come from such a place where I can give you both anecdotal evidence, as well as point you to India where poor farmers who used loans to grow GMO cotton and soy failed miserably in protest. Where I come from, I have seen GMO soy farmers that lost every penny, but I am not keen on anecdotal evidence. Just thought you should know, it aint the high ranks of India protesting, its the actual farmers.

Overall, a spade is a spade, bioengineering has done jack to really improve the overarching claims set forth of how productive its products will, could, should...be. And organic farming and heirloom varieties, not surprisingly, out-compete the junk science set forth. Lets just give Europe time to publish its longitudinal studies it set forth 1-3 years ago. I am not sure why Monsanto has has withheld, manipulated and altered the studies conducted.

Gay marriage - yeaaaah that was a nice victory, smile, yaaayy what a great win. But I still have one more bullet lodged in my throat
Stock price: MON (NYSE)$95.75-1.22 (-1.26%)
Sep 4, 4:01 PM EDT - Disclaimer

....? What? Gay marriage? I'm so confused.

Anyways. GMOs aren't just one entity. They can be very helpful, which is why protesting against all of them is stupid. Some of them could and would be helpful.

But it sounds like you are firmly implanted in all the Monsanto conspiracy theories so I should probably stop trying to argue...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Stagg737]

Provide the proof then. The US protesting doesn't culminate in burning of seeds and crops. Americans just want correct and honest, proper labeling to know what they are eating. I think that's fair.
Does not cost lives in this country, which is what the discussion is about.
If you're from some 3rd world country, then by this country, I mean the US of A.

I'm all for transparency, but just because something is a 'hot-button' topic doesn't mean it needs to get labeled. I mean, is it required to say when meat used in a product came from a cow/pig/chicken/whatever that was given antibiotics or fed cheap stock feed instead of its 'natural' diet? No. Are fish, such as tuna or swordfish, which may contain very high levels of mercury required to have warning labels which state that? No. So other than the fact that a bunch of people are complaining about something the media put in the spotlight, why should GMOs be required on labels over any of the other things I just mentioned?

I am confused...was your link part of the 2,000 articles that prove there is no factual evidence for the GMO safety?
I got bored reading dumb articles for my class so decided to poke my head into some of ones on the excel file.
This reminds me of that time I read a separate article that said about 75% of research is flawed and draws the wrong conclusions...
Here is what I perused in no special order.. Needless to say I got bored quickly, about this extraordinary magical number: 2,000, of the studies that "show" evidence its safe.

also watch this video, its pretty funny, all things aside:


“Scientists do not have full knowledge of the risks and benefits of any insect management strategies. Bt plants were deployed with the expectation that the risks would be lower than current or alternative technologies and that the benefits would be greater. Based on the data to date, these expectations seem valid.” - Annual Review of Entomology



“…any reasonable formulation of the precautionary principle will imply a value judgement that no rational decision‐maker would be prepared to accept” - Talking Point


An allegory on a precautionary principle…..




“Eucalyptus genetically engineered for freeze tolerance and targeted for introduction as a biomass crop in forest plantations in the Southeastern USA exemplifies a transgenic biofeedstock crop where the risk assessment focuses on the invasiveness of the whole plant……..


As a strategy for the management of risk associated with the field testing of the transgenic hybrid, further genetic modification for control of pollen flow is envisioned”


LoL that one made me laugh. We need to still do more genetic modification in order to test this awesome risk assessment we put forward.


- Advancing environmental risk assessment for transgenic biofeedstock crops



A hypothetical risk assessment article.







“Whether the detrimental effects of the toxic compounds on predators are indirectly mediated solely by the quality of the sick prey, or mediated directly by the intake of the toxin by the predator is not clear from this study.”


Spider mites de-activate or degrade the protein into a non-toxic form. Further studies are being conducted to investigate what happens to the toxin when it is ingested by different herbivores.”


- we don’t deactivate the Bt toxin….hmmm… I don’t think these are great model organisms for this study.Something to consider.


- Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperla carnea



“The C3 concentration proved highly toxic to host larvae, so only host-mediated effects of C1 and C2 concentrations on the parasitoid C. marginiventris were studied. As expected, purified Cry1Ab affected survival, developmental times, and growth rates of S. frugiperda larvae at all three Cry1Ab concentrations.”


- Impact assessment of Bt-maize on a moth parasitoid, Cotesia marginiventris (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), via host exposure to purified Cry1Ab protein or Bt-plants






This could not be more false. And I come from such a place where I can give you both anecdotal evidence, as well as point you to India where poor farmers who used loans to grow GMO cotton and soy failed miserably in protest. Where I come from, I have seen GMO soy farmers that lost every penny, but I am not keen on anecdotal evidence. Just thought you should know, it aint the high ranks of India protesting, its the actual farmers.

Overall, a spade is a spade, bioengineering has done jack to really improve the overarching claims set forth of how productive its products will, could, should...be. And organic farming and heirloom varieties, not surprisingly, out-compete the junk science set forth. Lets just give Europe time to publish its longitudinal studies it set forth 1-3 years ago. I am not sure why Monsanto has has withheld, manipulated and altered the studies conducted.

Gay marriage - yeaaaah that was a nice victory, smile, yaaayy what a great win. But I still have one more bullet lodged in my throat
Stock price: MON (NYSE)$95.75-1.22 (-1.26%)
Sep 4, 4:01 PM EDT - Disclaimer

Wtf is this^^^? I feel like the latest issue of Organic Lifestyle Magazine just vomited all over this thread...

 

[TBV]

Every time I hear someone mention "Monsanto" I envision that person wearing a fully tin foil suit

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

I'm all for transparency, but just because something is a 'hot-button' topic doesn't mean it needs to get labeled. I mean, is it required to say when meat used in a product came from a cow/pig/chicken/whatever that was given antibiotics or fed cheap stock feed instead of its 'natural' diet? No. Are fish, such as tuna or swordfish, which may contain very high levels of mercury required to have warning labels which state that? No. So other than the fact that a bunch of people are complaining about something the media put in the spotlight, why should GMOs be required on labels over any of the other things I just mentioned?




Wtf is this^^^? I feel like the latest issue of Organic Lifestyle Magazine just vomited all over this thread...

Honestly, I'm not against total transparent labeling. It doesn't matter much to me, but it seems people want it. This shouldn't be limited to GMOs.

I agree, I think total green or whatever took over.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

So I have to provide proof but you don't? Okay.

Proper labelling of what? DNA?

I'm pretty sure no one limited the discussion to people in the USA.

Where I'm from is not relevant to the discussion, but I happen to be your neighbour to the north, actually.

Now someone will probably say I'm a socialist.

I think when people talk about labeling, it's GMO vs. non-GMO, eh!

 

[Satire5Texul]

....? What? Gay marriage? I'm so confused.

Anyways. GMOs aren't just one entity. They can be very helpful, which is why protesting against all of them is stupid. Some of them could and would be helpful.

But it sounds like you are firmly implanted in all the Monsanto conspiracy theories so I should probably stop trying to argue...

none of that is science or evidence based. I think people romanticize the idea of technology. and here is a sector it fails miserably. It promised to end hunger just by eliminating natural enemies. Enriched betacarotene in rice. Golden rice - still not a thing. "could save a million kids a year" - time
I hope no one holds their breath for these. And I equated the recent human rights landslide as a thing that moves us forward in this generation, but not of a big step as seeing that big biotech companies go.

I'm all for transparency, but just because something is a 'hot-button' topic doesn't mean it needs to get labeled. I mean, is it required to say when meat used in a product came from a cow/pig/chicken/whatever that was given antibiotics or fed cheap stock feed instead of its 'natural' diet? No. Are fish, such as tuna or swordfish, which may contain very high levels of mercury required to have warning labels which state that? No. So other than the fact that a bunch of people are complaining about something the media put in the spotlight, why should GMOs be required on labels over any of the other things I just mentioned?




Wtf is this^^^? I feel like the latest issue of Organic Lifestyle Magazine just vomited all over this thread...

Under that notion why even label if salt is iodized or not, I dont remember this being a hot topic button. Let uninformed people's thyroid run on whatever traces of iodine it finds in the already poor diet. They will figure it out on their own.

Every time I hear someone mention "Monsanto" I envision that person wearing a fully tin foil suit

Is it the same fully tin foil suit they use when spraying down their products?
Or is the the kind of suit you need when spending nights trespassing through people's farms to find wind-dispersed pollen to bring allegations of seed hoarding?

 

[deleted716403]

After all the thousands of years of selective breeding, all the crops you are familiar with (carrots, corn, watermelon, etc) and eat, are all the result of genetic alterations via selective breeding. All of them were engineered thanks to humans. I encourage you to 1) look at this picture, notice that one of them is provided by nature whereas the other one is the result of human work and 2) if this is still not making sense, then please read this university article on the evolution of corn: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/

 

[amichel]

none of that is science or evidence based. I think people romanticize the idea of technology. and here is a sector it fails miserably. It promised to end hunger just by eliminating natural enemies. Enriched betacarotene in rice. Golden rice - still not a thing. "could save a million kids a year" - time
I hope no one holds their breath for these. And I equated the recent human rights landslide as a thing that moves us forward in this generation, but not of a big step as seeing that big biotech companies go.



Under that notion why even label if salt is iodized or not, I dont remember this being a hot topic button. Let uninformed people's thyroid run on whatever traces of iodine it finds in the already poor diet. They will figure it out on their own.




Is it the same fully tin foil suit they use when spraying down their products?
Or is the the kind of suit you need when spending nights trespassing through people's farms to find wind-dispersed pollen to bring allegations of seed hoarding?

Except Monsanto has never sued anyone for trace amounts of cross contamination like people like to claim. And the 11 times they have sued someone, they've won because *gasp* they have a patent and the farmers were not following the rules. That's capitalism, folks.

The stuff about suicide seeds - commercial farmers will tell you it's not economically efficient to re-use seeds. They buy new ones every year anyways.

All commercial seeds are patented. Not just Monsantos.

http://www.mamyths.org/did-you-know/

There are links to references in there.

And organic farming uses more pesticides, the proportion of which that are carcinogenic is the same as synthetic ones.

(PS both of those are low because we wash our food! Shocker.)

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

 

[amichel]

I think when people talk about labeling, it's GMO vs. non-GMO, eh!

So which ones do we label? Those modified through selective breeding? Only transgenic ones? How about the ones with deletions?

And actually, it seems most Americans support labelling DNA.

http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

That one still baffles me.

We don't do things just because people who have no understanding of the topic demand them.

 

[Satire5Texul]

After all the thousands of years of selective breeding, all the crops you are familiar with (carrots, corn, watermelon, etc) and eat, are all the result of genetic alterations via selective breeding. All of them were engineered thanks to humans. I encourage you to 1) look at this picture, notice that one of them is provided by nature whereas the other one is the result of human work and 2) if this is still not making sense, then please read this university article on the evolution of corn: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/

I am very familiar with the shattering and corn seeds. All of those methods exploit the already naturally present variations in DNA. This is not the same as me taking a toxin found in bacteria and incorporating it into the very cell of a plant, those are two different worlds.

Except Monsanto has never sued anyone for trace amounts of cross contamination like people like to claim. And the 11 times they have sued someone, they've won because *gasp* they have a patent and the farmers were not following the rules. That's capitalism, folks.

The stuff about suicide seeds - commercial farmers will tell you it's not economically efficient to re-use seeds. They buy new ones every year anyways.

All commercial seeds are patented. Not just Monsantos.

http://www.mamyths.org/did-you-know/

There are links to references in there.

And organic farming uses more pesticides, the proportion of which that are carcinogenic is the same as synthetic ones.

(PS both of those are low because we wash our food! Shocker.)

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

Do you know any company that has sued even 10 times for seed regulation?
Is it normal when a city sues you over pollution ?
How about when the Department of Agriculture has no knowledge of your field test of wheat?

Also why arent we bioengineering wheat. Why is there no real advances there. Its a staple food. And dont say because of the fear mongers. To me this has remained largely untouched area because a) the problem is too complex to reduce gluten and other economically desired products b) there is fear that implications behind altering such a staple food could really endanger a portion of the food supply we depend largely on.

I also purposely left out pesticides because that's not what gmo versus gmo is about. But since you brought it up, let me remind you that if you think pesticides are superficial and all of them are washed away and not incorporated or present beyond the surface of the plant..ehhh that would be wrong.
Organic or not. In both cases, you need awareness of the agricultural practices of the company. I dont need to tell you about lipid solubility and so on. You know all of that already.

 

[deleted716403]

with links to research data

 

[amichel]

I am very familiar with the shattering and corn seeds. All of those methods exploit the already naturally present variations in DNA. This is not the same as me taking a toxin found in bacteria and incorporating it into the very cell of a plant, those are two different worlds.



Do you know any company that has sued even 10 times for seed regulation?
Is it normal when a city sues you over pollution ?
How about when the Department of Agriculture has no knowledge of your field test of wheat?

Also why arent we bioengineering wheat. Why is there no real advances there. Its a staple food. And dont say because of the fear mongers. To me this has remained largely untouched area because a) the problem is too complex to reduce gluten and other economically desired products b) there is fear that implications behind altering such a staple food could really endanger a portion of the food supply we depend largely on.

I also purposely left out pesticides because that's not what gmo versus gmo is about. But since you brought it up, let me remind you that if you think pesticides are superficial and all of them are washed away and not incorporated or present beyond the surface of the plant..ehhh that would be wrong.
Organic or not. In both cases, you need awareness of the agricultural practices of the company. I dont need to tell you about lipid solubility and so on. You know all of that already.

I assumed when you mentioned "spraying down their fields" you meant with pesticides. You're right. It's not all washed off. But most of it is, which is why screaming about carcinogenicity at high levels is dumb, organic or not.

As for "incorporating a bacterial toxin", you realize that bacteria insert genes into plants all on their own, too. Right?

I think you assuming that no one has genetically engineered wheat because it's a staple crop is taking about 7000 logic leaps.

 

[amichel]

with links to research data

That guy is a nut with zero qualifications.

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-individuals/jeffrey-smith/

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

So which ones do we label? Those modified through selective breeding? Only transgenic ones? How about the ones with deletions?

And actually, it seems most Americans support labelling DNA.

http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

That one still baffles me.

We don't do things just because people who have no understanding of the topic demand them.

This part is news to me. General public doesn't have a clue about our own DNA nonetheless the various manipulations made. All I've seen is GMO vs. non-GMO labeling debates.

 

[amichel]

This part is news to me. General public doesn't have a clue about our own DNA nonetheless the various manipulations made. All I've seen is GMO vs. non-GMO labeling debates.

Such is my point. They have no idea, which is labelling things they don't understand is a bad idea. It's why there's now going to be actual pumpkin in pumpkin spice lattes (ew) instead of just the spices used in pumpkin pie.

The only way I'd be for it is if people started popping up with food allergies (anaphylactic, not the gluten intolerance type) to GMO proteins. Even then it would be dumb to label all of them because many of them are deletions and stuff anyways. Maybe just label the extra compound as an ingredient like anything else? I don't know.

Until then, it's just an excuse to fear monger.

 

[Stagg737]

Under that notion why even label if salt is iodized or not, I dont remember this being a hot topic button. Let uninformed people's thyroid run on whatever traces of iodine it finds in the already poor diet. They will figure it out on their own.

That's a bad analogy. Iodine is on the label because it's a separate ingredient added to the salt. A better analogy would have been "Why even label if water used is distilled or not?" because it's the same ingredient just treated differently. Which our society doesn't require that water be labeled as distilled or tap, so why label GMO? Let the uninformed that drink tainted water get IBS or other GI problems, they'll figure it out on their own right?

Do you know any company that has sued even 10 times for seed regulation?
Is it normal when a city sues you over pollution ?
How about when the Department of Agriculture has no knowledge of your field test of wheat?

Normally you don't get sued, the city or state just fines you. Pretty much every city/state and the feds have littering or pollution laws and cars have to meet federal environmental standards otherwise you get fined/lose your car. So I'd say that aspect is pretty normal. Just like if something is patented and someone else starts making an identical product they get sued and lose, then get fined. That's how our system works in the U.S.

Such is my point. They have no idea, which is labelling things they don't understand is a bad idea. It's why there's now going to be actual pumpkin in pumpkin spice lattes (ew) instead of just the spices used in pumpkin pie.

But the pies that use actual pumpkin instead of the crappy spices are so much better than that pumpkin spice crap

 

[amichel]

That's a bad analogy. Iodine is on the label because it's a separate ingredient added to the salt. A better analogy would have been "Why even label if water used is distilled or not?" because it's the same ingredient just treated differently. Which our society doesn't require that water be labeled as distilled or tap, so why label GMO? Let the uninformed that drink tainted water get IBS or other GI problems, they'll figure it out on their own right?



Normally you don't get sued, the city or state just fines you. Pretty much every city/state and the feds have littering or pollution laws and cars have to meet federal environmental standards otherwise you get fined/lose your car. So I'd say that aspect is pretty normal. Just like if something is patented and someone else starts making an identical product they get sued and lose, then get fined. That's how our system works in the U.S.



But the pies that use actual pumpkin instead of the crappy spices are so much better than that pumpkin spice crap

Of course but lattes were never intended to have pumpkin in them... They're not supposed to taste like pumpkin. They're supposed to taste like pumpkin pie.

 

[Psai]

That's a bad analogy. Iodine is on the label because it's a separate ingredient added to the salt. A better analogy would have been "Why even label if water used is distilled or not?" because it's the same ingredient just treated differently. Which our society doesn't require that water be labeled as distilled or tap, so why label GMO? Let the uninformed that drink tainted water get IBS or other GI problems, they'll figure it out on their own right?



Normally you don't get sued, the city or state just fines you. Pretty much every city/state and the feds have littering or pollution laws and cars have to meet federal environmental standards otherwise you get fined/lose your car. So I'd say that aspect is pretty normal. Just like if something is patented and someone else starts making an identical product they get sued and lose, then get fined. That's how our system works in the U.S.



But the pies that use actual pumpkin instead of the crappy spices are so much better than that pumpkin spice crap

Why are you drinking pumpkin

 

[Bryan O’Blivion]

Overall, a spade is a spade, bioengineering has done jack to really improve the overarching claims set forth of how productive its products will, could, should...be. And organic farming and heirloom varieties, not surprisingly, out-compete the junk science set forth. Lets just give Europe time to publish its longitudinal studies it set forth 1-3 years ago. I am not sure why Monsanto has has withheld, manipulated and altered the studies conducted.
)
Sep 4, 4:01 PM EDT - Disclaimer[/QUOTE]



Google the name Norman Borlaug.

 

[Satire5Texul]

Overall, a spade is a spade, bioengineering has done jack to really improve the overarching claims set forth of how productive its products will, could, should...be. And organic farming and heirloom varieties, not surprisingly, out-compete the junk science set forth. Lets just give Europe time to publish its longitudinal studies it set forth 1-3 years ago. I am not sure why Monsanto has has withheld, manipulated and altered the studies conducted.
)
Sep 4, 4:01 PM EDT - Disclaimer

Google the name Norman Borlaug.[/QUOTE]

Okay I really should have said GMO bioengineering. Backcrossing from what I understand is hybrid breeding match up he did to get a desirable result.
Heirloom and natural breeding are very different, again, from using a bacterial genome into a plant.
I wonder what the probability of this occurrence through natural processes since someone mentioned that these genes transfers do occur.

 

[Stagg737]

Why are you drinking pumpkin

I was talking about pie. Not sure how I'd drink a pie...

 

[Bryan O’Blivion]

Google the name Norman Borlaug.

Okay I really should have said GMO bioengineering. Backcrossing from what I understand is hybrid breeding match up he did to get a desirable result.
Heirloom and natural breeding are very different, again, from using a bacterial genome into a plant.
I wonder what the probability of this occurrence through natural processes since someone mentioned that these genes transfers do occur.[/QUOTE]


A desirable result? He was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for increasing world food supply, through his development of disease resistant wheat. He is credited with saving millions of lives. Good grief.

He wrote an article 15 years ago that is very germane to your line of questioning and assertions:

Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1539278/

A quotation from Norman Borlaug regarding critics of mechanized agriculture and plant biotechnology: "Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."

For some reason, it is hard for some people to get this. However, here's a simple example: It's nice to enjoy the taste of fresh garden heirloom vegetables from your garden or CSA share, eat fresh eggs from your four heirloom chickens, and pride yourself about eating locally grown GMO/pesticide free food. However, it's probably also good to be mindful that this supplements the main portion of your meal came from the recent trip to Costco where you piled the bulk of your daily nourishment into the back of your Volvo.

 

[Satire5Texul]

Okay I really should have said GMO bioengineering. Backcrossing from what I understand is hybrid breeding match up he did to get a desirable result.
Heirloom and natural breeding are very different, again, from using a bacterial genome into a plant.
I wonder what the probability of this occurrence through natural processes since someone mentioned that these genes transfers do occur.


A desirable result? He was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for increasing world food supply, through his development of disease resistant wheat. He is credited with saving millions of lives. Good grief.

He wrote an article 15 years ago that is very germane to your line of questioning and assertions:

Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1539278/

A quotation from Norman Borlaug regarding critics of mechanized agriculture and plant biotechnology: "Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."

For some reason, it is hard for some people to get this. However, here's a simple example: It's nice to enjoy the taste of fresh garden heirloom vegetables from your garden or CSA share, eat fresh eggs from your four heirloom chickens, and pride yourself about eating locally grown GMO/pesticide free food. However, it's probably also good to be mindful that this supplements the main portion of your meal came from the recent trip to Costco where you piled the bulk of your daily nourishment into the back of your Volvo.

I think you are missing the point, and what you are describing is as romanticized as the relished trip to Costco you describe.

And to give you a good example, El Savador was given aid with a stipulation to accept GMO seeds. Was this simply our thoughtfulness that really considered how hungry the country is, and what the best thing for them to do is?

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...successfully-oppose-the-use-of-monsanto-seeds

I dont think so.
Again you are arguing For GMO, from a guy that used natural breeding to increase the quality of food correct me if I am wrong.

A majority of health studies regarding GMO are faulty because they dont really get at the health effects, but treat their subjects like rats going through a LD50 experiment. We give you this and sit back and see what happens to you. We'll check back in a couple of weeks. You are not going to see any real health effects this way, especially considering most of these studies span 3 to 12 months from what I have seen. Instead there needs to be an independent agency that does a longitudinal experiment that really looks at the epigenetic changes (and I dont mean gmo-genes get incorporated into yours...that idea is beyond debunked. I already know I am not going to wake up with a corn for my finger from eating GMO). I mean what genes are turned off and on, in comparison to the same diet, in order to really get at what is going on. And no one is really doing that. This burden falls on the biotech companies to analyze the epistatic and epigenetic changes, not on proponents of GMO label laws.

I dont even want to get into the exploration of third world countries and the backdoor backhand offer of help. Sure you could end hunger. How about giving people a minimum wage higher than .10 cents a day. Could they then possibly afford food. Just a snippet for a snippet.

I also think its difficult to convince people that they should accept something without any actual testing. This is a very sensitive topic in this debate. What would happen if down the road a potential increased risk of Alzheimers, cancer, or immunological problems arouse after feeding hungry Philippine children for 3 decades and exposing lets say 60 million of the roughly 100 million people who live there.

“We do not want our people, especially our children, to be used in these experiments,” a farmer who was a leader of the protest told the Philippine newspaper Remate. (Golden Rice - manipulated using a bacterial gene)

For the record: I dont drive a Volvo or anything close. Or shop at Costco. 40% of my food comes from my backyard

 

[Bryan O’Blivion]

I think you are missing the point, and what you are describing is as romanticized as the relished trip to Costco you describe.

And to give you a good example, El Savador was given aid with a stipulation to accept GMO seeds. Was this simply our thoughtfulness that really considered how hungry the country is, and what the best thing for them to do is?

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...successfully-oppose-the-use-of-monsanto-seeds

I dont think so.
Again you are arguing For GMO, from a guy that used natural breeding to increase the quality of food correct me if I am wrong.

A majority of health studies regarding GMO are faulty because they dont really get at the health effects, but treat their subjects like rats going through a LD50 experiment. We give you this and sit back and see what happens to you. We'll check back in a couple of weeks. You are not going to see any real health effects this way, especially considering most of these studies span 3 to 12 months from what I have seen. Instead there needs to be an independent agency that does a longitudinal experiment that really looks at the epigenetic changes (and I dont mean gmo-genes get incorporated into yours...that idea is beyond debunked. I already know I am not going to wake up with a corn for my finger from eating GMO). I mean what genes are turned off and on, in comparison to the same diet, in order to really get at what is going on. And no one is really doing that. This burden falls on the biotech companies to analyze the epistatic and epigenetic changes, not on proponents of GMO label laws.

I dont even want to get into the exploration of third world countries and the backdoor backhand offer of help. Sure you could end hunger. How about giving people a minimum wage higher than .10 cents a day. Could they then possibly afford food. Just a snippet for a snippet.

I also think its difficult to convince people that they should accept something without any actual testing. This is a very sensitive topic in this debate. What would happen if down the road a potential increased risk of Alzheimers, cancer, or immunological problems arouse after feeding hungry Philippine children for 3 decades and exposing lets say 60 million of the roughly 100 million people who live there.

“We do not want our people, especially our children, to be used in these experiments,” a farmer who was a leader of the protest told the Philippine newspaper Remate. (Golden Rice - manipulated using a bacterial gene)

For the record: I dont drive a Volvo or anything close. Or shop at Costco. 40% of my food comes from my backyard

I have consistently found that any publication that has the word "truth" in it is usually lacking therein, and is 99% of the time agenda driven misinformation. Think "Vactruth" for instance, which has a sublimely stupid article about aliens and vaccination. The "Truthout" article which you linked above is no exception. I am sad to see Dahr Jamail's name on it, he was one of the original journalists who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004. However, if this is the kind of work that he does, it is not surprising he hasn't found better employment in 10 years.

While it is basically true that US aid often comes with strings attached, usually in the form of disadvantageous (to the borrower) debt restructuring, and heavily tied in with corporate interests, there are many details in this article that are blatantly incorrect, and therefore I would choose to disregard it. For instance, "suicide seeds", refer to the Terminator gene or Genetic Use Restriction Technology, which has NEVER been commercialized, and has been under moratorium since 2000. Also, the lawsuits against small farmers sounds egregious, until closely inspected, where it can be found that the small farmers were intentionally using the patented seeds, which makes the lawsuits actually pretty fair.

Why the interest in multigenerational epigenetic studies? Epigenetics is a favorite of the alt med community, since it is new, incompletely understood, and turns a lot of conventional thinking about inheritance on it's head (it's sort of Lamarckian, after all). I don't see that it necessary to make people wait years and years for food. This kind of argument was well addressed by Borlaug, in the article I referenced in the above post.

Opposition to golden rice is really, really sad.


EDIT: In rereading your responses, it appears to me that you have a certain amount of confusion about about many biological processes. Also, it seems like you either did not read, or did not understand Borlaug's article. I also think that you seem confused about world politics. I am not sure where to start addressing any of these. I encourage you to replace your suspicion with curiosity, and investigate genetics and molecular biology. I am not being patronizing, in fact I have edited my posts to remove the snarky elements, because it appears to me that you are opining without a fundamental understanding of biological science, which just leads to awkward pauses in any conversation, but I would be out of line to sneer at you. I have been in your shoes at one time. Replace fear with fascination, it is a better life.

Shalom.

 

[OnePunchBiopsy]

Forget GMOs, I'll stick to eating prions... delicious prions. They're all-natural after all.

 

[TheZaLord]

As for "incorporating a bacterial toxin", you realize that bacteria insert genes into plants all on their own, too. Right?

Sweet potatoes!

Um...that's all for me, folks.

 

[amichel]

I have consistently found that any publication that has the word "truth" in it is usually lacking therein, and is 99% of the time agenda driven misinformation. Think "Vactruth" for instance, which has a sublimely stupid article about aliens and vaccination. The "Truthout" article which you linked above is no exception. I am sad to see Dahr Jamail's name on it, he was one of the original journalists who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004. However, if this is the kind of work that he does, it is not surprising he hasn't found better employment in 10 years.

While it is basically true that US aid often comes with strings attached, usually in the form of disadvantageous (to the borrower) debt restructuring, and heavily tied in with corporate interests, there are many details in this article that are blatantly incorrect, and therefore I would choose to disregard it. For instance, "suicide seeds", refer to the Terminator gene or Genetic Use Restriction Technology, which has NEVER been commercialized, and has been under moratorium since 2000. Also, the lawsuits against small farmers sounds egregious, until closely inspected, where it can be found that the small farmers were intentionally using the patented seeds, which makes the lawsuits actually pretty fair.

Why the interest in multigenerational epigenetic studies? Epigenetics is a favorite of the alt med community, since it is new, incompletely understood, and turns a lot of conventional thinking about inheritance on it's head (it's sort of Lamarckian, after all). I don't see that it necessary to make people wait years and years for food. This kind of argument was well addressed by Borlaug, in the article I referenced in the above post.

Opposition to golden rice is really, really sad.


EDIT: In rereading your responses, it appears to me that you have a certain amount of confusion about about many biological processes. Also, it seems like you either did not read, or did not understand Borlaug's article. I also think that you seem confused about world politics. I am not sure where to start addressing any of these. I encourage you to replace your suspicion with curiosity, and investigate genetics and molecular biology. I am not being patronizing, in fact I have edited my posts to remove the snarky elements, because it appears to me that you are opining without a fundamental understanding of biological science, which just leads to awkward pauses in any conversation, but I would be out of line to sneer at you. I have been in your shoes at one time. Replace fear with fascination, it is a better life.

Shalom.

Yah, crying epigenetics is pretty silly since anything we eat/breathe/use/whatever could theoretically create epigenetics changes. It's not a fair standard to hold a product to.

Also, I do not understand how actual GMOs could cause changes anyways. Doesn't matter what order the DNA is in once it gets broken up in your digestive system. The pesticides etc... Maybe. But refer to argument a above.

Point is I agree with you, haha. Sorry. Post studying midnight ramble.