quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Ok, this statement is just so wrong, it is impossible to ignore. One more time for the people who apparently never took genetics in their lives. There is a difference between selective breeding (which has happened for 1000s of years) and genetic modification. Selective breeding is breeding parents of plants or animals to enhanced positive characteristics and weed out undesirable ones. It is why we have dogs living in our houses and not wolves. Genetic modification is recombining dna, by introducing dna from another source. Here is a handy article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism
Since they didn't know what the fuck DNA was until the turn of the 20th century, I think we can safely assume they weren't recombining it. Jesus, firmhand, usually you do better than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

FR:

Ya'll know, don'tcha that every single major food crop that mankind cultivates has been "genetically modified" for hundreds of years?  As well as all food animals that we eat?

We just used "old technology".

Hell, Lager Beer is the result of an apparent natural genetic modification to beer yeast, several hundred years ago.

"Frankenfood" is almost all mankind has been eating for the past thousand years, at least.

And we just keep dying younger and younger, don't we?

Firm

You're making me defend Firm and I hate that.

We've done a lot more than selectively breed crop plants. Hybridization has produced many of the crops we eat and that is genetic manipulation of crude sort. Wheat is a basic example, Durum is a hybrid of two grasses while bread wheat is a hybrid of 3 grasses.

Triticale is a hybrid of wheat and rye which was developed in the late 19th century by exposing wheat and rye germ material to colchicine. This was done decades before DNA was ever detected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Why is one method "bad" and the other "good"?

If I thought you were seriously interested, I would devote time to a serious response.

quote:

Because "God didn't intend us to do it that way"?

As far as I am concerned, God does not enter the equation.

quote:

Much of the talk about "Frankenfood" seems to be more about Neo-Luddism, than anything else.

I see it as not being susceptible to Toxic Sludge Is Good For You rather than Luddism.

So far, you have failed to make any scientific case against gene mod plants or animals.  All you have done is throw out fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).

Your agenda is political, not scientific.

Firm

quote:

I think it has more to do with the reluctance to give our well being completely over to a bunch of Capitalists. Monsanto and others have not proved over the years to be good stewards of the people that not only work for them but also that live in their communities. The company that gave us Saccharin, Agent Orange and PCB's should be allowed to introduce Biogen'd seeds? Doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I think it has more to do with the reluctance to give our well being completely over to a bunch of Capitalists. Monsanto and others have not proved over the years to be good stewards of the people that not only work for them but also that live in their communities. The company that gave us Saccharin, Agent Orange and PCB's should be allowed to introduce Biogen'd seeds? Doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

If the seeds produce roundup or a variant the effect on localized pollinators is going to be devastating. Obviously music to a company that not only promotes self pollinators but also pushes terminators......Effectively taking the food decisions out of the farmers hands and putting them in the hands of the Monsanto Company.

In theory Biogen'd seeds and plants are a godsend to a growing world population that can't feed itself. However, how this is rolled out and how this is govenerned needs to be sorted before we allow Companies sway on the very thing that keeps us alive...food.

I think it has more to do with the reluctance to give our well being completely over to a bunch of Capitalists. Monsanto and others have not proved over the years to be good stewards of the people that not only work for them but also that live in their communities. The company that gave us Saccharin, Agent Orange and PCB's should be allowed to introduce Biogen'd seeds? Doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

I think it has more to do with the reluctance to give our well being completely over to a bunch of bureacrats. State and Federal governments have not proved over the years to be good stewards of the people that not only work for them but also that live in their communities. They gave us the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, Japanese internments during WWII, Wounded Knee and a host of other immoral actions should be allowed to introduce Biogen'd seeds? Doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

HI Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I used to have your viewpoint on genetic modifications done in the lab these days- that it's nothing more than speeding up the previous methods of biology from selective breeding. However, a biologist pointed out that we can mix in genes from organisms that couldn't mix before. Viruses can insert themselves into organisms, but we're creating chimeras. Imagine a dog/mouse chimera-even if you used dog semen into a mouse, you wouldn't get anything. But now we can do such chimeras at the genetic level, so there is a question of safety, we haven't got millions of years of evolution blocking something that might be a no/no.

However, other methods exploit natural forms of gene transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, or the ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells.

The resulting hybrid, representing a marriage of species as evolutionarily separate as humans and chickens, would give us lager, the clear, cold-fermented beer first brewed by 16th century Bavarians.

For a genetically modified organism to be approved for release it is assessed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) agency within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The USDA evaluated the plants potential to become weeds, the FDA reviewed plants that could enter or alter the food supply and the EPA regulated the genetically modified plants with pesticide properties. Most developed genetically modified plants are reviewed by at least two of the agencies, with many subject to all three.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Overall though, it's not a threat that I worry about too much- but there is a different problem that's a concern. We're going increasingly to monocultures for our food supply, and monocultures have a problem that when an invading species figures out how to take them out, well, there's going to be nothing left to occupy their niche. Let's face it, these monoculture crops are one big inviting food source for a variety of organisms such as fungus, viruses, bacteria etc. In the bad old days, if one strain of wheat got wiped out by a blight, well, you planted something else. But Monsanto is trying to make sure that there really is nothing else- that everything out there is owned by them. I find this monoculture reliance problematic- especially with global climate change altering the environment. Seems to me that if you've got a half dozen strains of wheat, if the temperature does something funky- well, you've got a lot better chance of at least one of them surviving rather than a single strain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I don't have a problem with labeling GMO stuff in theory, but in practice, I think the horse has already left the barn. However, I think that consumers do have a right to know what they're purchasing, especially if they want to vote with their dollars and buy something else. It's a democracy- people get to make their own choices- its not for us, even if we have a snazzy education, to say that we know what's good for you. People can waste their money buying vitamins too as well as a wide variety of plant extracts of dubious safety and utility.

PS_ I watched a few minutes of that "documentary" against Monsanto. Lots of errors- PCBs were never the jewel of their business, they were a diversified mfg. And most people thought that those oils were benign- some folks used to use them as a lotion. A lot of the compounds they make sound scary especially if you mispronounce aspartame, but they're really not. Most compounds aren't toxic. I'm not sure that Monsanto is much worse than a company such as GE, but I haven't looked that closely.

quote:

They may not realize that they are being anti-scientific, and supporting hunger and possible famine,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

What do you think the process for hybridization is?  Selective breeding.  It is not inserting DNA from one plant (or whatever) into another.  There have already been a number of  arguments on this thread why this is a bad idea.  Do you think Monsanto is doing it to be benevolent?  Nope, they do it because they found a way to patent seeds.  The long term affect on other crops and the environment is unknown, since the Supremes ruled that Monsanto wasn't even required to complete an EIS.  THe laws of unintended consequences can be pretty devastating.  And yes, I want natural food, not doused with Roundup.  If they didn't even bother to do an EIS, how sufficiently do you think the health risks have been studied.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/supreme-court-decides-monsanto-case-lifts-gmo-alfalfa-ban/

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

They may not realize that they are being anti-scientific, and supporting hunger and possible famine,

Now who is fear mongering?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

In post 33 I linked to organic farming being better than conventional in times of drought.

Here's a study that's not drought dependant:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html

Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds
By Susan S. Lang

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes.

David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agriculture, concludes, "Organic farming offers real advantages for such crops as corn and soybeans." Pimentel is the lead author of a study that is published in the July issue of Bioscience (Vol. 55:7) analyzing the environmental, energy and economic costs and benefits of growing soybeans and corn organically versus conventionally. The study is a review of the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial, the longest running comparison of organic vs. conventional farming in the United States.

Pimentel noted that although cash crops cannot be grown as frequently over time on organic farms because of the dependence on cultural practices to supply nutrients and control pests and because labor costs average about 15 percent higher in organic farming systems, the higher prices that organic foods command in the marketplace still make the net economic return per acre either equal to or higher than that of conventionally produced crops.

Organic farming can compete effectively in growing corn, soybeans, wheat, barley and other grains, Pimentel said, but it might not be as favorable for growing such crops as grapes, apples, cherries and potatoes, which have greater pest problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

What do you think the process for hybridization is?  Selective breeding.  It is not inserting DNA from one plant (or whatever) into another.  There have already been a number of  arguments on this thread why this is a bad idea.  Do you think Monsanto is doing it to be benevolent?  Nope, they do it because they found a way to patent seeds.  The long term affect on other crops and the environment is unknown, since the Supremes ruled that Monsanto wasn't even required to complete an EIS.  THe laws of unintended consequences can be pretty devastating.  And yes, I want natural food, not doused with Roundup.  If they didn't even bother to do an EIS, how sufficiently do you think the health risks have been studied.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/supreme-court-decides-monsanto-case-lifts-gmo-alfalfa-ban/

Hybridization is exactly inserting the DNA from two or more distinct plant species into one new one. Triticale is the entire wheat genome and the entire rye genome put into a single plant with chemical exposure to induce polyploidism, ie making each chromosome duplicate itself, so the new organism has two matching dna strands in each chromosome.

The issue, if there is an issue, isn't genetically modifying crops or food animals. It is whether sufficient safety testing has been done and Monsanto's business strategy. Looking foolish by freaking out over gmo in general just makes you seem fringe and hysterical. If a case can be made about the safety of a GMO then someone should do the research and publish the data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"In other words, their "labeling" position is nothing more than a method to make demonizing easier and more effective, not any real attempt to give "choice and freedom" to people. "

You lost me there. Are you saying people have no right to know ? That's the result. Maybe they shouldn't be required to label at all, i.e. if a food product contains HFCS. Or hell, fuck diabetics as well and don't bother to mention the sugar content of foods, many of which incidentally should not have any sugar at all. But that's beside the point.

First of all people in general are so stupid that this demoniztion you predict would probably not happen. How many people actually read labels anyway ? Watch them shop.

Orwell missed one - Poison is good food.