RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 2:34:56 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

quote:

I've already given at least one example of a "naturally GMOed" food .. lager beer. I've given information about the fact that it occurs naturally ... yet, here you are wanting to define it a certain way, just to fit your own biases ....

Not true. I posted the definition I was using many, many, many posts ago. Here it is again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism

Ok, some I'm using the terms to fit my biases.

But the point is still made. Natural "GMO" organism occur, even without mankind's intervention.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Profile

Post #: 121

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 2:53:53 PM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Valid concern, but not specifically a reason to stop GMO crops.

Even hybrid crops require new seeds to be purchased every year.

Please, separate the political/power issues from the technical issues.

Firm

The reason to stop is that the safety of each gmo has not been properly and independently tested, safe for humans to eat and other creatures that do not harm the crops such as monarch butterflies and possibly gmos have played a part in the bee problem. The gmo salmon being grown in the ocean and the possible consequences is also a concern. There was also a certain gmo corn that had a protein that could cause a dangerous allergic reaction in people that have those kinds of allergies, I think the protein was from a brasil nut. That gmo corn was specifically only allowed to be grown as animal feed but farmers did not separate it and it did make it into the food supply (Taco bell taco shells)... but an anti-gmo group discovered this problem before it harmed or killed anyone. Its problems like these. Again i say, if a developing country wants to allow gmos to be grown then they can but until i am given the choice to say no i dont want any food with gmos here landing on my dinner table, imo it should stop.

Sure, if a farmer wants to buy new seeds then they are able to do that but with monsanto gmos the farmer is not given that choice since he isnt allowed to keep any of the seed from any crops to reseed with. Farmers can also do their own cuttings with certain plants that it makes sense to do that with (like perhaps tomatos, etc). I expect that any plants that one can do that with violates monsantos patents just as with the seed issue.

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 122

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 3:02:47 PM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

Don't know where you are getting your information about lager beer that you keep going on about but:
http://www.dailytech.com/Lagers+Mystery+Yeast+Discovered+in+Argentina+/article22520.htm

According to the definition I have cited twice now, it was not genetically modified though.

As an aside, did everyone else know that those cool glow fish that they sell at pet stores are genetically modified to do that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

quote:

I've already given at least one example of a "naturally GMOed" food .. lager beer. I've given information about the fact that it occurs naturally ... yet, here you are wanting to define it a certain way, just to fit your own biases ....

Not true. I posted the definition I was using many, many, many posts ago. Here it is again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism

Ok, some I'm using the terms to fit my biases.

But the point is still made. Natural "GMO" organism occur, even without mankind's intervention.

Firm

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 123

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 3:29:52 PM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

Moo Shu Man-Milk
Chinese cows produce human breast milk
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/390017/june-20-2011/threatdown---moo-shu-man-milk--centenarians---robo-slackers

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to tj444)

Profile

Post #: 124

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 4:03:30 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Don't know where you are getting your information about lager beer that you keep going on about but:
http://www.dailytech.com/Lagers+Mystery+Yeast+Discovered+in+Argentina+/article22520.htm

According to the definition I have cited twice now, it was not genetically modified though.

As an aside, did everyone else know that those cool glow fish that they sell at pet stores are genetically modified to do that?

Your definition is arbitrary. S. pastorianus is a hybrid of two seperate species of yeast. If that isn't a genetically modified organism I really can't begin to see what would make something a GMO.

Those glowing fish are the product of a very useful scientific tool. The gene that makes the fish glow can be inserted into various animals in many different ways causing different structures to glow. I've seen fish embryos where the central nervous system glowed so you could observe the development of the CNR without needing to kill the fish.

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Profile

Post #: 125

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 4:04:35 PM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

Are you more comfortable with the term genetically engineered?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Don't know where you are getting your information about lager beer that you keep going on about but:
http://www.dailytech.com/Lagers+Mystery+Yeast+Discovered+in+Argentina+/article22520.htm

According to the definition I have cited twice now, it was not genetically modified though.

As an aside, did everyone else know that those cool glow fish that they sell at pet stores are genetically modified to do that?

Your definition is arbitrary. S. pastorianus is a hybrid of two seperate species of yeast. If that isn't a genetically modified organism I really can't begin to see what would make something a GMO.

Those glowing fish are the product of a very useful scientific tool. The gene that makes the fish glow can be inserted into various animals in many different ways causing different structures to glow. I've seen fish embryos where the central nervous system glowed so you could observe the development of the CNR without needing to kill the fish.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 126

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 6:28:07 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

FR

Would you EAT something that glows in the dark ?

T^T

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Profile

Post #: 127

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 6:42:59 PM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

Hell no. I wouldn't eat a little twelve dollar tropical fish, either. Doesn't mean they aren't cute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

FR

Would you EAT something that glows in the dark ?

T^T

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 128

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 8:56:43 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Would you EAT something that glows in the dark ?

It would depend on what she looked like ....

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 129

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/8/2011 11:26:27 PM

DeviantlyD

Posts: 4375
Joined: 5/26/2007
From: Hawai`i
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And your links are nice, but I don't see how they track with your point ... uhh, what is your point, exactly?

Firm

That you're wrong. :D The links were reliable references to back up my statements.

_____________________________

ExiledTyrant's groupie. Catering to his ego since May 26, 2007. :D

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 130

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/9/2011 7:22:09 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

In an interesting coincidence, I went to a talk yesterday at a local American Chemical Society where a representative of Blue Marble gave a talk on the technology they're developing. Their technology uses bacteria that have been bred to anaerobically digest several biomass waste streams including the leftover goop from Anheiser Busch, coffee grounds, wood, and perhaps a few other things. They're using a fermentation process to produce a variety of chemicals such as esters, terpenes, carboxylic acids etc which today mostly come from petroleum sources. Basically it's a way to produce "natural" food flavorings and ingredients for cosmetics.

Concerns about whether the bacteria get out in the environment? Well, it's an anaerobic bacterium- will die if it comes into contact with oxygen. These guys worry about an engineered algae displacing algae from existing niches, but I don't- the track record has been that the genetically engineered algae drops dead and the algae that was there before takes over- nature's had a long time to get algae down.

So how did they get these bacteria for these fermentation processes? Selective hybridization- i.e. standard breeding technology with no "genetic engineering." So one of the members of the audience asked the question- wouldn't a genetically engineered bacterium be better? There seemed to be a lot of consensus (but there were no biologists present that I knew of- mostly retired chemists) that there really wasn't any difference between genetic engineering and hybridization, since at the end of the day, you were modifying the genetics of an organism. Why not do genetic engineering?
1) expense- it's hard work to insert genes into algae.
2) Occasionally doesn't work- insert a gene and the bacterium spits out the gene in subsequent generations.
3) Can't sell to Europe. Cosmetics mfg in Europe are real big on "natural" sources, but they don't want GMO stuff. While this is largely semantics, it's a valid reason from a business perspective.

Also pointed out at the meeting- "natural" and petroleum derived are largely the same thing. An ester is an ester whether it comes from a barrel of oil or out of a bacterial fermentation vat. However, if an ester is spec'd at 98% pure, what the impurities are can vary depending on source- which can alter some processes.

Economics- "natural" source chemicals are currently about 4x the cost of petroleum sourced. The goal is to make the bio sourced material less expensive, but odds are it won't compete with petroleum derived products at the current price point. However, bio sources also have another advantage- they get rid of stuff that goes into a landfill and turn it into a feedstock- a very nice feedstock because occasionally people are even willing to pay you to use the feedstock. FYI-Beer byproducts are something like 1.3 million tons in the US- that's a feedstock.

It's clear that the technology is still early stage, but it at least gets one of the problems of biofuels solved- find feedstocks from big concentrated manufacturers like in beer manufacture so that you don't have to spend the energy and $$ collecting your feedstock. Note- Blue Marble is still trying to scale up- they've got a long ways to go.

Sam

(in reply to DeviantlyD)

Profile

Post #: 131

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/9/2011 6:46:05 PM

LookieNoNookie

Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Be careful what you are eating! Monsanto is launching its first GMO sweet corn, aimed at the fresh market. Do you really want to serve your family corn that is "Roundup Ready"?
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFN1E77315R20110804

Sweety...get used to it...we're living in a new time.

If you want "home grown"...."natural"...there are seed company's that can provide you that.

Buy a piece of dirt....grow some (natural) corn...or....eat some poisoned, pilfered whatever it is you want to eat.

Welcome to soilent green and the "organics" that accompany same.

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Profile

Post #: 132

RE: Monsanto launching bio engineered sweet corn - 9/10/2011 7:33:27 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hangemhigh1953

Genetically modified food will one day end world hunger, IIRC we are already able to feed a billion more people than an organic agriculture could ever possibly cope with. If you're opposed to genetically modified food, you're practically supporting the deaths of a billion people.

If you support farm subsidies which themselves only exist to support the uber-expensive farming methods dictated by the agro-chem and bio-chem industries, both as practiced in North America and in Europe and in Japan, then you are not 'practically,' but in fact quite effectively supporting the deaths of millions of people, not to mention putting third world already-destitute and likely war-ravaged-to-begin-with farmers out of business right and left, which leads to food shortages at the slightest natural disruption, not to mention further crowding of already overcrowded third-world cities as result of disruption of centuries-long agricultural practices and economic facility existing within evolving but important cultural considerations ...

Well yeah, aside all that, why don't all those destitute people in India and Africa and Indonesia, and ...

oh, I forgot to mention ...

All those 80-90 % of farmers in US and Canada and Mexico who (the US too, just to remind again) who get no checks from the government but are still forced to buy the Cargil, Archer-Daniels-Midland, Monsanto crap.

Or else.

While Monsanto's Michael Taylor was head of the FDA, he prohibited any studies of effects of GMO's on the environment, humans, animals, or anything else from being considered in the question of whether to allow them or not.

Gangland "farming" at its best.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 9/10/2011 7:48:30 PM >

(in reply to hangemhigh1953)

Profile

Post #: 133