If GMO were used to rapidy develop strains, could it become safer?

Grandpapy said:
And for every "BETTER" action there is a equal and opposite "NOT SO MUCH BETTER" reaction.
Click to expand...

thats the nature of progress sometimes for the price of "better" we have to loose some shit that "wasnt so bad", and too often the "better" turns out to be "shittier" a ways down the road, but "wasnt so bad" can rarely be recovered.


"progress" in politics and technology both arent about finding whats actually better, just what's new, patentable, and profitable. thats why the second step in creating the new, is demolishing that which came before.

if you can never undo the "progress" then you will always be looking for a new answer even if the old answer still works.
 
Dr Kynes said:
thats the nature of progress sometimes for the price of "better" we have to loose some shit that "wasnt so bad", and too often the "better" turns out to be "shittier" a ways down the road, but "wasnt so bad" can rarely be recovered.


"progress" in politics and technology both arent about finding whats actually better, just what's new, patentable, and profitable. thats why the second step in creating the new, is demolishing that which came before.

if you can never undo the "progress" then you will always be looking for a new answer even if the old answer still works.
Click to expand...

Chances are that as a child, if you were away from home and got thirsty you stopped by your local gas station because they had a water fountain. Rarely see one anymore.

Now you pretty much have to buy a bottle with water in it if you are thirsty on the road. Thats just bad for landfills, but good for petro-chem. Not to mention life sustaining water should be free for all.

But with Monsanto, they have the ability to wipe out mankind, while they are chasing the upward trending graph.
 
desert dude said:
What problems?

What makes you think GMO foods are not safe?
Click to expand...

Because there are large numbers of studies, including those done by Monsanto themselves (which passed FDA approval, of course former Monsanto execs run the FDA), indicating they are not safe.

You have to have an overwhelmingly gigantic ego to think we can fuck with nature like this in a safe way.

Forget that the actual products are dangerous, they also are dangerous in many other ways. Namely genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is vitally important to survival. Always has been, always will be. Species not diverse, die.

As far as "there's never been a documented case" - well, when side effects build over time in a species that takes quite a while to develop (humans, vs say rats) it takes a while to show up. And since there were no serious studies done prior to release (and the short term ones indicating organ damage and other side effects were ignored) to test for safety of a relatively new product - the information you require to accept these things as dangerous (or even potentially dangerous) lacks significantly. Monsanto scientists admit fully that these organisms produce unintended proteins that have unknown effects.

Here's some things definitely happening over the past 20 years or so (GMO crops have been around since the early 90's):

Allergic reactions and allergies in general are increasing at a high rate.
Cancer rates have climbed steadily over this period as well.

And the only long term study we have indicates cancer is a side effect of at least one GMO crop.

This stuff never should have been released. The fact the government will grant a monopoly on nature - even more disgusting and disturbing and clear evidence IP law is not beneficial to society on any level at all.
 
Grandpapy said:
Chances are that as a child, if you were away from home and got thirsty you stopped by your local gas station because they had a water fountain. Rarely see one anymore.

Now you pretty much have to buy a bottle with water in it if you are thirsty on the road. Thats just bad for landfills, but good for petro-chem. Not to mention life sustaining water should be free for all.

But with Monsanto, they have the ability to wipe out mankind, while they are chasing the upward trending graph.
Click to expand...

I think this overstates things. Monsanto now is where Microsoft was in the early 90s, and Standard Oil was a century ago. The monopoly will unknit itself in time. cn
 
Dr Kynes said:
it would have to be a whole sequence of genes that causes grapes to develop the mechanisms to synthesize peanut proteins.

genetic code bits dont cause allergies, the same 4 bits arraigned in nearly infinite combinations is all genetic material is, and peanuts and grapes already share the same four genetic marker bits.

adding fish genes to tomatoes didnt make tomatoes with gills or scales, it made tomatoes with resistance to frost.

adding luminous bacteria genes to fishies didnt make fish that reproduce by mitosis, it made fish that glow in the dark.

peanut/grape transgenic crops would not make berries that are lethal to people with peanut allergies, any more than it would create legumes that can be made into wine.
Click to expand...

Jesus you're a know it all.

You're talking completely 100% out your ignorant ass right now.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
Because there are large numbers of studies, including those done by Monsanto themselves (which passed FDA approval, of course former Monsanto execs run the FDA), indicating they are not safe.

You have to have an overwhelmingly gigantic ego to think we can fuck with nature like this in a safe way.

Forget that the actual products are dangerous, they also are dangerous in many other ways. Namely genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is vitally important to survival. Always has been, always will be. Species not diverse, die.

As far as "there's never been a documented case" - well, when side effects build over time in a species that takes quite a while to develop (humans, vs say rats) it takes a while to show up. And since there were no serious studies done prior to release (and the short term ones indicating organ damage and other side effects were ignored) to test for safety of a relatively new product - the information you require to accept these things as dangerous (or even potentially dangerous) lacks significantly. Monsanto scientists admit fully that these organisms produce unintended proteins that have unknown effects.

Here's some things definitely happening over the past 20 years or so (GMO crops have been around since the early 90's):

Allergic reactions and allergies in general are increasing at a high rate.
Cancer rates have climbed steadily over this period as well.

And the only long term study we have indicates cancer is a side effect of at least one GMO crop.

This stuff never should have been released. The fact the government will grant a monopoly on nature - even more disgusting and disturbing and clear evidence IP law is not beneficial to society on any level at all.
Click to expand...

What I love is the fact that, if their seed should blow on to your land and sprout, you will be sued. You must pay for it's removal. WTF?
 
Grandpapy said:
I don't see how Monsanto makes anything safer.
Click to expand...

They don't, they make lesser crops that yield less, require huge amounts of chemicals to even make it through a season while attacking genetic diversity and billions of years of evolution in the process - all while getting a government granted monopoly on things essential for everyones survival. GE and a number of other companies all fall into the same category, Monsanto isn't the only GMO producing company out there.
 
Grandpapy said:
What I love is the fact that, if their seed should blow on to your land and sprout, you will be sued. You must pay for it's removal. WTF?
Click to expand...

Pollen. Cross contaminated crops are property of Monsanto as well. You literally almost can't get corn that hasn't been contaminated by the way. Even Oaxaca - where corn started - has had their fields contaminated. Monsanto couldn't sell seed there so instead they sold really really cheap ears of corn (and who can tell where it came from, like Dr Kynes said...) and people bought them, tossed them, and of course as nature does some of the kernels sprouted and bam. You have contaminated the region.
 
cannabineer said:
I think this overstates things. Monsanto now is where Microsoft was in the early 90s, and Standard Oil was a century ago. The monopoly will unknit itself in time. cn
Click to expand...

It's not that they would, but a industry who's product that is banned in several countries for widespread loss of biodiversity, years later introduce it here only to have it do the same widespread damage. They and the FDA are not a good stewards of the earth and I for one do not trust them.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
Jesus you're a know it all.

You're talking completely 100% out your ignorant ass right now.
Click to expand...

really.

use your interwebs and point me to a single study which shows ANY relation to ANY allergy triggered by ANY gene sequence in food.

just one.

it doesnt even have to be a GOOD study.

it just has to be clinical, and published in a real journal.

really, just one study showing genetic material in food causing allergic reactions.


ill wait.
 
Grandpapy said:
It's not that they would, but a industry who's product that is banned in several countries for widespread loss of biodiversity, years later introduce it here only to have it do the same widespread damage. They and the FDA are not a good stewards of the earth and I for one do not trust them.
Click to expand...

Can you show me confirmed instances? I tried Googling it but got snowed under by blogs on an anti-GM theme. **** blogs. cn
 
OGEvilgenius said:
They don't, they make lesser crops that yield less, require huge amounts of chemicals to even make it through a season while attacking genetic diversity and billions of years of evolution in the process - all while getting a government granted monopoly on things essential for everyones survival. GE and a number of other companies all fall into the same category, Monsanto isn't the only GMO producing company out there.
Click to expand...

you really dont know what youre talking about.

SOME GM crops are designed to produce higher yields with less fertilizers,, pesticides and herbicides. they dont always out-produce the home garden where every plant is lovingly tended by the gardener, but on a couple hundred acres or more they drop much larger yields than the other varieties.

SOME are designed to INCREASE resistance to pests for example: starlink corn is deadly poison to budworms, but not mammals birds or fish, monsanto's cotton cultivars are resitant to mould,, drought, and the boll weevil, they are NOT more vulnerable to these hazards. your just plain wrong.

SOME GMO crops are designed to be resistant or even immune to a particular herbcide, this is INVALUABLE for silage and tillage crops, since the short lived herbicides can eliminate a pest plant and after one season of tillage you caqn pasture animaals in that feild without any of them dropping dead from eating Spurge, a deadly poisonous non-native invasive weed which has sap that can blister your skin, but sheep and cattle dont know its lethal until too late.

SOME GMO crops are designed for a particular feature, and some have multiple advantages over standard crops, but NONE of them have ever killed anybody.

you could easily argue the madness of their gene patent lawsuits, their pollen patenting crap, and their inseertion of a suicide gene in seeds so they cant be grown from saved seeds, but your completely false statements about the purpose, uses and virtues of GMO crops is nothing but pure garbage
 
Grandpapy said:
http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/03/22/319/ I'l keep looking for the specifics.
Click to expand...

The best current guess at colony collapse in bees implicates pesticides, specifically neonicotinoids. The article sneaks in the phrase "and the pesticides associated with [GM crops]". I do not see this as an example of the claim: that GM crops are affecting biodiversity, which means either plants or the non-ag creatures eating the crop plants.
And it's a :curse: interest-group blog.

ceterum censeo you claimed "widespread diversity loss". That would be a true eco-calamity and should have featured repeatedly in, say, The Economist and Nature. But I find nothing.
 
Dr Kynes said:
really.

use your interwebs and point me to a single study which shows ANY relation to ANY allergy triggered by ANY gene sequence in food.

just one.

it doesnt even have to be a GOOD study.

it just has to be clinical, and published in a real journal.

really, just one study showing genetic material in food causing allergic reactions.


ill wait.
Click to expand...

It actually has to be studied for a study to exist, there are no good models that exist to do so that are considered ethical. I can prove to you allergies have dramatically increased and I have spoken to at least one Allergist who suspects it's the widespread introduction of new foods that produce proteins the body has never seen or dealt with before because that seems to be the most likely and reasonable answer.

You really don't need to do a study to see the obvious connection, but certainly it should be done. Good luck designing it.

This is some more compelling data IMO.

Corn. Canola. Soy. Sugar beets. It's estimated that close to 75 percent of products on grocery store shelves now contain at least one genetically modified ingredient.
Genetic engineering is achieved by changing the protein sequence in a gene to give a crop a specific trait; some varieties of GM corn, for instance, have been altered to produce pesticides in plant tissues so that the crop itself doesn't have to be sprayed.

But as O'Brien explains, the body of a child with food allergies may recognize these foreign proteins as "invaders," launching an inflammatory attack that manifests as an allergic -- sometimes deadly anaphylactic -- reaction.


O'Brien calls herself an unlikely crusader for the anti-GM movement. A Twinkie-loving Texas native, she was focused on being a mother of four until her youngest child's face swelled alarmingly one morning after a breakfast of blue yogurt and eggs.


In her quest to find out why, she began to uncover some mind-blowing statistics: Since the introduction of genetically engineered foods in the mid 1990s, there has been a 265 percent increase in the rates of hospitalizations due to food-related allergic reactions. That same CDC study from 2007 found that food allergies overall had increased 18 percent. But those data were based on a figure of 3 million children; the newer research published in Pediatrics earlier this week puts that number closer to 6 million.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/eco-etiquette-is-genetica_b_882238.html
 
cannabineer said:
The best current guess at colony collapse in bees implicates pesticides, specifically neonicotinoids. The article sneaks in the phrase "and the pesticides associated with [GM crops]". I do not see this as an example of the claim: that GM crops are affecting biodiversity, which means either plants or the non-ag creatures eating the crop plants.
And it's a :curse: interest-group blog.

ceterum censeo you claimed "widespread diversity loss". That would be a true eco-calamity and should have featured repeatedly in, say, The Economist and Nature. But I find nothing.
Click to expand...

What on earth do you need? Of course there's been diversity loss. Even just monocropping does that to some degree.

Another example where a study is simply not needed, at all.

As far as what should be featured in those publications, that's entirely up to the publishers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top