GMOs Don't Hurt Anyone, But Opposing Them Does

gene creep


you can end up doing things to an environment that you cant even imagine on your wildest day.

We CAN feed everyone right NOW if we Choose to do so with the plants we have in nature
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Your point being?
Click to expand...


That there are things in this world to be feared. Some of them are even worth getting emotional about!

Obviously Tom is a climate science denier and therefore anything he posts is suspect, because I have seen how he excels at finding propaganda. String is apparently one of those who eschews organics, which to me indicates stupidity, cynicism, or propaganda. You may know that the Libertarian pin-up boy, John Stossel, has spread a lot of horseshit about organics. He has a hard-on about them, and I'm sure that can be traced back to some corporate agenda or other, but I have never bothered to look into that idiot to find out.

The anti-organic movement has acolytes on the left as well. I am always bemused by people who spitefully eat non-organic food as if they are somehow getting me. Honestly, in taste alone the difference is huge, so sure, go ahead and "spite" me.

Personally, from what I can discern the science is not yet fully in on GMO's, in some ways. But there are enough other alarming problems with GMO's and their practices that they are not something I am comfortable with. And the bottom line is, someone on this thread said we can feed the world but the will isn't there. Well, that's true. And it says everything.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You don't. What evidence do you have after 20 some years that this has been a problem? Doesn't hybridization gain the same results in agriculture seeds? The answer is yes. The difference between commercial hybrid seed (which have been around for nearly 100 years) and GMO seeds is that one is genetically manipulated invitro and the other invivo. Why do people who oppose the use of GMO seeds not oppose the use of commercial hybrid seeds which create the same kinds of genetic modifications?

Can you answer that question?
Click to expand...

False equivalency. Commercial hybrids do not create the same kind of genetic modifications.
 
evince said:
If the science is really there like you claim then its encumbant on the field to convince the population.


There is very good reason for the population NOT to trust any corporation.
Click to expand...
Well that's a good point but and obviously the Agr-Biz Companies have not done a good job of doing so but that's a PR issue and not a safety one.
 
then the scientific field will back them.

Until they do broadly so Im on the fence.

that means NO until Im off the fence
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that's a good point but and obviously the Agr-Biz Companies have not done a good job of doing so but that's a PR issue and not a safety one.
Click to expand...

Here is an excellent article about Monsanto and how it goes about threatening people with lawsuits. To have the US by the balls is one thing, it's yours to do what you want with, but we don't want it over here. Monsanto also sells artificial bovine growth hormone and wants the EU to take US beef, we don't want that either.

Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.
Click to expand...
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
 
Last edited:
evince said:
bug resistant genetically engineered crops end up gene creeping into the native plants.

Now you have a die off of insects.

then the things that pray on insects.

then the things that prey on the things that prey on insects.

then very bad things start happening.


I don't trust these crops or their makers.
Click to expand...
I understand your mistrust of these companies but what factual evidence do you have that this is occurring? Like I said, if you include commercial hybridization, which is a different method to achieve the same result as GMO seeds, this technology has been around for close to a hundred years.

In reality, what frustrates me about this issue is that people are missing the forrest from the trees or, to use a medical analogy, are confusing the symptom with the problem. GMO produced foods are not the problem, they are the symptom of a problem. Monocultural agricultural practices are the problem. That's what people should be focused on and not GMO foods.
 
evince said:
no I cant.

I also cant trust any science produced by any corporation
Click to expand...
Why not? Peer review is peer review. If the results are not independently verified, regardless of what the initial source is, then it's not true science. Commercial centers for R&D are some of the most productive centers for science research and they afford scientist, materially speaking, a higher standard of living than academia typically does. What is wrong with that?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why not? Peer review is peer review. If the results are not independently verified, regardless of what the initial source is, then it's not true science. Commercial centers for R&D are some of the most productive centers for science research and they afford scientist, materially speaking, a higher standard of living than academia typically does. What is wrong with that?[/QUOTE]

You're kidding right?
Click to expand...
 
evince said:
If indeed this science is safe you will have the greater scientific world heralding it.


when that happens you will have everyone joining the idea.

I wait until then
Click to expand...
But you do have the greater scientific world saying so. That was the point I made to BAC. Didn't you go to the site I linked in my response to BAC and read the material there?
 
Rune said:
No, and it is already being applied to animal; http://news.yahoo.com/young-frankenfish-meet-terrifying-offspring-gmo-salmon-wild-194512676.html










It doesn’t happen often in nature, but now and then, a wild Atlantic salmon (yes, there are still a few left) mates with a brown trout and has hybrid offspring.
This ability to reproduce between species had some Canadian scientists curious: If a genetically modified Atlantic salmon were to come in contact with a brown trout, would it too be able to have little transgenes babies? The answer is yes, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. And it turns out that those offspring carry the genetically inserted trait that allows them to grow faster than their Mother-Nature-made cousins. Much faster. In fact, the hybrid offspring outgrew their genetically tweaked parents as well.
“When the fish were placed in a mocked-up stream inside the laboratory, the researchers found that the hybrids were out-competing both the genetically modified salmon and wild salmon, significantly stunting their growth,” writes Rebecca Morelle, science reporter for BBC News.
“They’re like the super offspring,” George Leonard, director of strategic initiatives, Ocean Conservancy, tells TakePart.
The fact that these fast-growing fry even exist and can thrive may contradict the FDA’s own environmental assessment report, which says genetically engineered salmon’s ability to survive and reproduce in the wild is extremely remote, calling into question the agency’s finding of no significant impact.
Click to expand...
Uhhh how is that a safety issue? Hybrid fish can't breed.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Uhhh how is that a safety issue? Hybrid fish can't breed.
Click to expand...

What is so special about fish, other hybrids reproduce?

Significant differences in the chromosome numbers of parent animals used to produce hybrid animals can often result in the hybrid being infertile. Often, the female hybrid animal can become pregnant, though not easily, while the male hybrid is completely sterile. Liger and tigon males are both sterile hybrids; female tigons and ligers are usually fertile. The mule, which is a result of crossbreeding between a female horse and a male donkey, is also sterile.
Click to expand...
 
evince said:
gene creep


you can end up doing things to an environment that you cant even imagine on your wildest day.

We CAN feed everyone right NOW if we Choose to do so with the plants we have in nature
Click to expand...

Most everything we eat was engineered. Nature does not provide many food crops and farming is "unnatural" in that sense.
 
Darla said:
That there are things in this world to be feared. Some of them are even worth getting emotional about!

Obviously Tom is a climate science denier and therefore anything he posts is suspect, because I have seen how he excels at finding propaganda. String is apparently one of those who eschews organics, which to me indicates stupidity, cynicism, or propaganda.
Click to expand...

I do not eschew organics. We had a long discussion between myself and pmp on promising organic techniques about a year ago. I simply pointed out that there are drawbacks. There are! I eschew stupidity, cynicism and propaganda, which is what most of the argument against golden rice here has been.

Darla said:
You may know that the Libertarian pin-up boy, John Stossel, has spread a lot of horseshit about organics. He has a hard-on about them, and I'm sure that can be traced back to some corporate agenda or other, but I have never bothered to look into that idiot to find out.

The anti-organic movement has acolytes on the left as well. I am always bemused by people who spitefully eat non-organic food as if they are somehow getting me. Honestly, in taste alone the difference is huge, so sure, go ahead and "spite" me.

Personally, from what I can discern the science is not yet fully in on GMO's, in some ways. But there are enough other alarming problems with GMO's and their practices that they are not something I am comfortable with. And the bottom line is, someone on this thread said we can feed the world but the will isn't there. Well, that's true. And it says everything.
Click to expand...

The science is in enough for us to move forward. There are hundreds of papers showing GM to be safe and nothing showing they are harmful. There are reasons to be cautious but golden rice is a no-brainer. The anti GM forces are opposed because they fear it's success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top