Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
  1. #221
    Would you trust these major corps not to develop genetically altered pests which only they can cure/prevent? They thrive in the land of low regulations.

    The issue is not the way things are now, but what they can become. Maybe non-profit governmental companies or universities should be handling the improvement of our food.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    I never really thought the ANTI-GMO as well as the ANTI-VAX crowd as right or left. I could see how there can be factions of both spectrums against GMO and VAX
    Trying to ascribe anti-GMO views to be a right wing thing is pretty funny given how hippies are one of the major proponents of organic food.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Conisdering that many here are arguing in favor of the pro-corporate shit line, yeah...it's unbelievable. They are actually saying that people in EU, AUS among others are stupid when it comes to science, and people in the US aren't.
    It's quite a turnabout.
    One wonders how they eat their GMO foods with Monsanto's dick shoved so far down their throat.

  3. #223
    The Lightbringer Molis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    3,054
    Seedless watermelon are GMO, however just created by careful selection and breeding.
    Current GMO just speeds up the process.

    Corn
    Bananas
    Apples

    All products of GMO that takes years instead of days

    But keep on thinking people are out to get you

  4. #224
    Titan Charge me Doctor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Russia, Chelyabinsk (Tankograd)
    Posts
    13,849
    Quote Originally Posted by President View Post
    I doubt all food is directly hormone injected and direct gene manipulated. These are the things people refer to, not selective breeding, when they talk about GMOs.
    No, it's worse, it was selected randomly by people without knowing what they are getting out of it
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Dictionary
    Russians are a nation inhabiting territory of Russia an ex-USSR countries. Russians enjoy drinking vodka and listening to the bears playing button-accordions. Russians are open- and warm- hearted. They are ready to share their last prianik (russian sweet cookie) with guests, in case lasts encounter that somewhere. Though, it's almost unreal, 'cos russians usually hide their stuff well.

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Charge me Doctor View Post
    No, it's worse, it was selected randomly by people without knowing what they are getting out of it
    Well, since we've got a Russian in here shilling for GMOs I guess that disproves the article right?

    Are you really going to pretend that genetic drift and gene splicing are anywhere close to the same thing?

    Also, just an FYI, the whole reason GMOs are patentable is because it's unlike selective breeding.

  6. #226
    Titan Charge me Doctor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Russia, Chelyabinsk (Tankograd)
    Posts
    13,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurrora View Post
    Well, since we've got a Russian in here shilling for GMOs I guess that disproves the article right?

    Are you really going to pretend that genetic drift and gene splicing are anywhere close to the same thing?

    Also, just an FYI, the whole reason GMOs are patentable is because it's unlike selective breeding.
    Wonder where i can get my shilling money then.

    People are fearmongering out of ignorance and companies keep steering the pot because of profits for either side, on the other hand, people should educate themselves, especially at what genes are and how they work, when media starts spewing bullshit like "scientists put a scorpion gene into tomato to make it less attractive for pests!" it make me cringe, and people who actually buy into this shit make me cringe even more.

    Gene injection is way more reliable, controllable and effective than selective breeding, with how much control over what actually goes into market and if it's deadly, has long-term consequences or not, while with selective breeding it's not always the case, with selective breeding you don't know what you get out of it (you can't tell it reliably in laboratory conditions compared to gene injection) and it literally can lead to the very same consequences that gene injection can, but with scientists have way less control over it. It is the same thing, it's just different technology (if selection can be even considered a technology in our age), it's the same thing from the perspective of our body - it doesn't gives a flying fuck about how the food was modified, it only cares about what food you are eating, and unless your GMO corn started producing some poisonous proteins thanks to genetic modifications (being it selection or gene splicing or injection) - it doesn't gives a fuck.

    Dodgy moves by companies, patenting and all other stuff is out of question when discussing if GMOs are dangerous or not, it's all politics and economics.
    Last edited by Charge me Doctor; 2018-03-10 at 04:21 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Dictionary
    Russians are a nation inhabiting territory of Russia an ex-USSR countries. Russians enjoy drinking vodka and listening to the bears playing button-accordions. Russians are open- and warm- hearted. They are ready to share their last prianik (russian sweet cookie) with guests, in case lasts encounter that somewhere. Though, it's almost unreal, 'cos russians usually hide their stuff well.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Najnaj View Post
    First of all...BLOCK OF TEXT!

    Yes, there are chances that things could not go as planned when producing a GMO. They have ended up with toxic forms of rice for example. This is why we test it. Also, it is a bit more than 1%. Golden rice are saving lives and can save millions of them in the future. Pest resistant crops reduce pesticide use and saves money for farmers. Colored cotton stops the need for dyes and improves the quality of the fabric as it does not fade. At the moment they are talking about perennial wheat. Given that it tests properly this is a huge time and money saver. There is a lot more to this than Monsanto's Roundup ready stuff which has dominated until today..and still does for many crops.

    For those having issues with patents, Monsanto's soy patents expired a few years back and now anyone can use their seed. They developed it and made a lot of money from it but so did a lot of farmers who were not exactly forced to use the seed no matter what a few documentaries on Monsanto would have you believe. Today you can use if without paying extra. Also, yes I know Monsanto's Roundup ready soy is a shit example of a product especially made to withstand huge amounts of poisons but but it is still a good example for the legalities of it.
    A couple of problems with that. At least as far as I am aware of the problem. First - pesticide use. Please read the NY Times article again:
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...esticides.html
    Actual use of pesticides grew in the US, whereas in organic farming (e.g. France) it halved. It might be a singular example and not represent an overall trend (I really have no data and too lazy to look it up for other countries), but that just proves that nothing is that simple. Yields are comparable.
    Secondly, and that concerns Monsanto's patents specifically, farmers that want to move from their seeds can not use any other product. If I remember correctly, Their genetically modified plants that were designed to poison caterpillars and weeds, also produced a number of toxins that made land unusable for any other crop. At least over next few years. And there is no telling for how long this would affect yields in the long run. It might be that even if not all new harvest would be lost, it partially might be affected. I would think that even a loss of 10% might damage an individual farmer financially, even though overall global trends might not be changed to the same degree.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Charge me Doctor View Post
    Wonder where i can get my shilling money then.
    People are fearmongering out of ignorance and companies keep steering the pot because of profits for either side, on the other hand, people should educate themselves, especially at what genes are and how they work, when media starts spewing bullshit like "scientists put a scorpion gene into tomato to make it less attractive for pests!" it make me cringe, and people who actually buy into this shit make me cringe even more.
    It was a fish gene and it ultimately failed to produce the outcome they were hoping for.

    Gene injection is way more reliable, controllable and effective than selective breeding, with how much control over what actually goes into market and if it's deadly, has long-term consequences or not, while with selective breeding it's not always the case, with selective breeding you don't know what you get out of it (you can't tell it reliably in laboratory conditions compared to gene injection) and it literally can lead to the very same consequences that gene injection can, but with scientists have way less control over it.
    Selective breeding to produce some of the things possible by GMOs would occur over thousands to millions of years. Time in which we would be evolving alongside the plant and likely adapting to changes.
    It is the same thing, it's just different technology (if selection can be even considered a technology in our age), it's the same thing from the perspective of our body - it doesn't gives a flying fuck about how the food was modified, it only cares about what food you are eating, and unless your GMO corn started producing some poisonous proteins thanks to genetic modifications (being it selection or gene splicing or injection) - it doesn't gives a fuck.
    Like say BT Corn?

    Dodgy moves by companies, patenting and all other stuff is out of question when discussing if GMOs are dangerous or not, it's all politics and economics.
    Discussing the patentability is relevant when you're claiming the products of selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same. The ability for transgenic organisms to be patented is based on the fact that you cannot create them through selective breeding. You don't get to have it both ways.

    Opposition to GMOs also occur for a number of reasons, not solely on concern over the safety of eating them. Monopolies resulting from GMO mega corporations is a perfectly good reason to oppose them, as is the loss of genetic diversity in our food supply, the surge in the use of pesticides/herbicides with GMO plants that has created an arms race with mother nature, and economic hardships that have happened as a result of GMOs.

    3.6 Million acres of soybean fields were damaged last year by dicamba that was used as an herbicide on dicamba tolerant soy, that's 4% of the United State's total soybean crop. 93% of the soybean crop is genetically modified. GMO farming practices resulted in the destruction of over half the soybean crop that wasn't genetically engineered.

  9. #229
    I am Murloc!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Ser Arthur Dayne View Post
    On general principle one must be for labels, or you show that you don't care about health in general, you can't tie down your opinion on ur specific product.
    If there are enough labells people will ignore them all.. labeling should be limited in order to be effective and labeling should be meaningful to be effective

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarkan View Post
    If there are enough labells people will ignore them all.. labeling should be limited in order to be effective and labeling should be meaningful to be effective
    What do you think would be meaningful labelling for GMO products?

  11. #231
    I am Murloc!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    What do you think would be meaningful labelling for GMO products?
    I did not say it would be meaningful to label things as GMO. And i do not think it would be. The label would seem to say nothing about health, would seem not to say anything consistent about the environment, would seem to say nothing consistent about sustainability for the farms.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Molis View Post
    Seedless watermelon are GMO, however just created by careful selection and breeding.
    Current GMO just speeds up the process.

    Corn
    Bananas
    Apples

    All products of GMO that takes years instead of days

    But keep on thinking people are out to get you
    Great examples!

    Peace

  13. #233
    Since it seems like the right thread to do so, ill quote the Eternal words of Harvey Danger in the song Flagpole Sitta "Paranoia, paranoia everybody's coming to get me" It seems thats what it comes to when you talk about GMOs.

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarkan View Post
    I did not say it would be meaningful to label things as GMO. And i do not think it would be. The label would seem to say nothing about health, would seem not to say anything consistent about the environment, would seem to say nothing consistent about sustainability for the farms.
    That's not what i asked though.

    There are certainly differences in GMO products that could be made into labels - specific modifications changing their consumer value or specific farming practices allowed by their modifications.

    And because GMO products are, supposedly, thoroughly tested, those labels can be made quite precise - in addition to broad and largely valueless "GMO" umbrella term.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •