Tasty GM crops, or insecticides... you decide

The ingredients say "corn", much like they say "sugar". If you want more; that's your job to investigate. Do you also think that every other ingredient should have additional information beyond what the ingredient is? Nobody complains that it isn't "refined sugar" it's just sugar. They don't tell you specifically what part of a pig "pork" is in the hot-dog ingredient list. Why this additional burden that feeds into sensationalist fears for GMO products?
Sugar is a chemical, a single molecule. Pork is, as I say, a part of a pig, if that pig has genetics that are directly modified, then it isn't a pig any more. You seem to have failed to address that the definition of "corn" changes (or should change) if a company modifies that organism enough to gain a patent on it. If nothing else, there should be a patent number somewhere on that label, don't you think?
 
The ingredients say "corn", much like they say "sugar". If you want more; that's your job to investigate. Do you also think that every other ingredient should have additional information beyond what the ingredient is? Nobody complains that it isn't "refined sugar" it's just sugar. They don't tell you specifically what part of a pig "pork" is in the hot-dog ingredient list. Why this additional burden that feeds into sensationalist fears for GMO products?
I would gladly pay extra for the "additional burden" of printing the label with the words "NO GMO"......thank you
 
Sugar is a chemical, a single molecule. Pork is, as I say, a part of a pig, if that pig has genetics that are directly modified, then it isn't a pig any more. You seem to have failed to address that the definition of "corn" changes (or should change) if a company modifies that organism enough to gain a patent on it. If nothing else, there should be a patent number somewhere on that label, don't you think?

How so? It's still corn; it's just resistant to an herbicide; which in no way makes it not corn. I'm genetically different from you; am I no longer a person? Changing genes does not immediately make you not a person. Why does it work that way with other things?
 
How so? It's still corn; it's just resistant to an herbicide; which in no way makes it not corn. I'm genetically different from you; am I no longer a person? Changing genes does not immediately make you not a person. Why does it work that way with other things?
There is no patent on you or me, there is on that corn. Obviously both Monsanto and the government thought it was different enough from corn to issue that patent.
 
You know the gas used to ripen fruit is "organic"...?

Ethylene gas...Google it.

What makes you think I give a shit about organic? Urea is organic and not allowed. Yet certain organic which contain radon more than nonorganic irradiated. Some organic "pesticides" are deadlier than nonorganic. So deadly no one is allowed to work on the field for over a week after application. I even grow pesticide free bubbler chem weed that I leech feeding only sugar and citric acid ph water one week. Then the last week only ph water. The plants hang a week fully intact. If conventional nongmo went that far as I do I'd have no problems. Just say no to gmo!
 
Sugar is a chemical, a single molecule. Pork is, as I say, a part of a pig, if that pig has genetics that are directly modified, then it isn't a pig any more. You seem to have failed to address that the definition of "corn" changes (or should change) if a company modifies that organism enough to gain a patent on it. If nothing else, there should be a patent number somewhere on that label, don't you think?

With respect to the corn, it's a no brainer. Mind if I plagiarize this and send it to my state rep?
 
Sugar is a chemical, a single molecule. Pork is, as I say, a part of a pig, if that pig has genetics that are directly modified, then it isn't a pig any more. You seem to have failed to address that the definition of "corn" changes (or should change) if a company modifies that organism enough to gain a patent on it. If nothing else, there should be a patent number somewhere on that label, don't you think?

You don't know the definition of corn. There isn't one beside the taxonomy. Zea mays.

And to think the virus are not busy modifying the genome of it all, every day, you are just out of touch and not up for the subject. You think a Rose by another gene is now not a Rose? What a buzz kill for the bees, Dude. You are worshiping the "true element of life" that man is "messing with"...admit it.

It is Maize. It is a grain, like rice, wheat, whatever. Transgenic maize (genetically modified corn) made up 85% of the maize planted in the United States in 2009.[SUP][4]

Try a little google, will you? Now, to pigs, horse, mules, chickens, dogs and cats...all are GM for our purpose, quite cruel in practice, the culling. We are still practicing the Science of Botany. And in Biology they use GM mice, to save our asses.

This is why it looks like stupid hippies.

Nonsense.
[/SUP]
 
1) Daily Kos, please.
2) That study was thoroughly dismantled. They slaughtered those pigs early and ran no controls.
3) even if you drink that Kool-Aid, not one single one of those pigs died of anything other than the knacker's knife.
You haven't found thing one to support the claim; remember it? Animals that B because of their GM feed.
So. Any corroboration?? cn

I tried. Ok...

If B then GM feed. Not B. Therefore, not GM feed.
 
My opposition to GMO has nothing to do with health or taste of food.......I oppose the Corp monopolies that use it to stomp out the little guy......BIG CORP should leave the small farmers alone.......but they won't.........so fuck'm...........
 
How so? It's still corn; it's just resistant to an herbicide; which in no way makes it not corn. I'm genetically different from you; am I no longer a person? Changing genes does not immediately make you not a person. Why does it work that way with other things?
still missing the point here! IF, the company that made the corn so different that they asked for and were issued a patent things it is so different than corn that it deserves a patent, then it is ... wait for it.... NOT CORN. It is something else, something that is patentable, if it were simply corn, even simply corn with an unusual ability to resist herbicides, then it would not be patentable. If I breed any crop without actually directly modifying the dna, I cannot patent it.
 
You don't know the definition of corn. There isn't one beside the taxonomy. Zea mays.

And to think the virus are not busy modifying the genome of it all, every day, you are just out of touch and not up for the subject. You think a Rose by another gene is now not a Rose? What a buzz kill for the bees, Dude. You are worshiping the "true element of life" that man is "messing with"...admit it.

It is Maize. It is a grain, like rice, wheat, whatever. Transgenic maize (genetically modified corn) made up 85% of the maize planted in the United States in 2009.[SUP][4]

Try a little google, will you? Now, to pigs, horse, mules, chickens, dogs and cats...all are GM for our purpose, quite cruel in practice, the culling. We are still practicing the Science of Botany. And in Biology they use GM mice, to save our asses.

This is why it looks like stupid hippies.

Nonsense.
[/SUP]
How does one get a patent on maize?
 
still missing the point here! IF, the company that made the corn so different that they asked for and were issued a patent things it is so different than corn that it deserves a patent, then it is ... wait for it.... NOT CORN. It is something else, something that is patentable, if it were simply corn, even simply corn with an unusual ability to resist herbicides, then it would not be patentable. If I breed any crop without actually directly modifying the dna, I cannot patent it.

If genetically modified corn plant A can breed with non genetically modified corn plant B, then both plants are corn. That is biology 101.

Distinct species cannot interbreed.
 
still missing the point here! IF, the company that made the corn so different that they asked for and were issued a patent things it is so different than corn that it deserves a patent, then it is ... wait for it.... NOT CORN. It is something else, something that is patentable, if it were simply corn, even simply corn with an unusual ability to resist herbicides, then it would not be patentable. If I breed any crop without actually directly modifying the dna, I cannot patent it.

No we got your point. Did you get mine?

Are there 2 horses? The natual one and the ones we crossbred,, line bred, and keep careful note, and horrid culling, to be that. No. Just a horse. If we inject a glowing gene we can patent a glowing horse. So What? It is still a horse. Wake up.

How much does 1, stand to stud, cost for Derby Winner? Is it patented? Could have been but the law changed. Now after over 200 patents on human raw genes, those last ones are expiring. No more. New law.

You have no basis in patent law for what you are hand waving about. Life has been patented before. Bring facts not pleas for understanding of a fractured point of view.

Not only that you are sadly uninformed that virus is modifying all genetic code, constantly and is a main driver of evolution. In fact we find ancient virus sequence in human DNA.

False argument. You think everything can drive the genomes but us. Perhaps it is our job now, also.
 
If genetically modified corn plant A can breed with non genetically modified corn plant B, then both plants are corn. That is biology 101.

Distinct species cannot interbreed.
Ok, then how is it that Monsanto is suing and winning for patent infringement on farmers who have unitentionnaly bred their corn with Monsanto corn? It may still be biologicaly "corn" but it is not legaly the same thing any longer.
 
No we got your point. Did you get mine?

Are there 2 horses? The natual one and the ones we crossbred,, line bred, and keep careful note, and horrid culling, to be that. No. Just a horse. If we inject a glowing gene we can patent a glowing horse. So What? It is still a horse. Wake up.

How much does 1, stand to stud, cost for Derby Winner? Is it patented? Could have been but the law changed. Now after over 200 patents on human raw genes, those last ones are expiring. No more. New law.

You have no basis in patent law for what you are hand waving about. Life has been patented before. Bring facts not pleas for understanding of a fractured point of view.

Not only that you are sadly uninformed that virus is modifying all genetic code, constantly and is a main driver of evolution. In fact we find ancient virus sequence in human DNA.

False argument. You think everything can drive the genomes but us. Perhaps it is our job now, also.
I am not arguing the definition of "natural", as we are indeed a part of the "natural world" and so what we do must be as well, but so are the consequences of our "natural" acts. I am aware of what changes genetics but my point still holds in law. Now are you saying that I can patent a tomato I cross bred in order to get a white fuzzy fruit?
 
Back
Top