PDA

View Full Version : Genetically modified alfalfa problems in livestock.



arnika
Aug. 22, 2011, 11:18 PM
I came across this article that clearly defines several problems with using and feeding GMO alfalfa, as well as corn, soybeans and sugar beets. It is a letter sent by one of a group of researchers to US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. A followup letter requested by the EU and the UK is farther down the page. It discusses crop failure, animal infertility and spontaneous abortions(due to a specific pathogen found in the GMO crops) in livestock fed these feeds, as well as the possibility of humans becoming infected.

The USDA refused to research it further. I had to look at a UK site to find the info. Here is the link.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ScientistDefendsHisClaimofNewPathogenLinkedtoGMCro ps.php

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 07:31 AM
I came across this article that clearly defines several problems with using and feeding GMO alfalfa, as well as corn, soybeans and sugar beets. It is a letter sent by one of a group of researchers to US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. A followup letter requested by the EU and the UK is farther down the page. It discusses crop failure, animal infertility and spontaneous abortions(due to a specific pathogen found in the GMO crops) in livestock fed these feeds, as well as the possibility of humans becoming infected.

The USDA refused to research it further. I had to look at a UK site to find the info. Here is the link.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ScientistDefendsHisClaimofNewPathogenLinkedtoGMCro ps.php

As always, there is more to any story.

Right now, whole nations are fighting trade issues and any such as this is just one more posturing, here over the political hot potato the GMO's fearmongering provides.

Here is more about the group that supports that one scientist:

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=129

What he is proposing is extrapolating and without any scientific proof and if and when he does provide something, my guess is that will be as senseless as what he is promoting.
At least it is giving him his moment on the limelight, which is a well researched part of psychology that fits people like him.;)

We had the same political football made out of the very good science of hormone use in feeding cattle.
It was used as a trade barrier to protect european beef from the cheaper and better USA beef.

That battle was fought in the International Tribunal and finally the USA won on the science, that is clear on it.
Plenty of groups presented other "studies" that were not any good, but were done just to prolong the court case.

What is sad is that, after ten years of fearmongering with bad science, it is taken long time to reintroduce USA beef to the european markets, because everyone spent all that time hearing how bad it was for you and how bad the USA was trying to poison europeans.
Just listen to some posters here, they still are repeating those myths, that were clearly debunked already, in international court no less.

There is so much more out there in international trade and the very important agricultural international trade between powerful nations that meets the eye.

Remember, there is no action without consequences.
There will always be something you may find that is a bad consequence of what we do.
That doesn't mean what we do is inherently bad, just that we do what we do for the many good reasons it is the best for the situation.

What are GMOs?
They are a quicker way to achieve what is a natural process anyway, except in nature it is haphazardly done, thru mutations.
In the lab scientists do it with a certain goal in mind and with much research behind it.
Detractors of science don't understand how science works and make anything to do with it be anti-natural and guided by devils intended to harm.
What they don't know or ignore is that science is based in nature and natural processes, science and nature are not at all antagonistic, but symbiotic.

If there is real scientific proof to what this scientist is saying, he would not have had any problem publishing his findings.
That he is going thru such as that "Institute" is telling in itself that all he has is bad science and possible ulterior motives guide his claims.

Equilibrium
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:03 AM
Thank you Bluey. Because I have been one if those OMG, it's genetically modified. It's the devil's work.

I have my previous soy intolerant horses on a balancer with only one type of soy product in it. It is GM. I'm not having any of the issues I used to. Not saying it's science, not saying I'll only eat GM foods but I was a little surprised. All other attempts at getting back on other balancer brought all their symptoms back.

They look healthy, they act very healthy so I see no reason to change. If they don't live til 29 then I guess I can blame GM.

Terri

Daydream Believer
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:11 AM
I highly recommend reading the book "Seed of Deception." It is unbelievable how most of these GMO products were "approved" by the US govt and the shocking lack of safety testing on them. It's more politics than anything else.

They are not identical in nutritional content to the non GMO counterpart foods/plants either..that is well established now. Soy, for example, has more antinutrients in it..in other words, more of the "bad" stuff that is not good for us. BT corn got into the human food supply and there were major allergic reactions all over the US.

Bovine growth hormones now routinely given to dairy cattle to increase milk production are proven to persist in the milk through pasteurization and digestion and are tied to the increase in breast cancer in the US. That one blows my mind. I have a sister in law dying of breast cancer...so that really pissed me off to read. If you are going to drink milk and milk products, go organic. That's the only way to avoid the hormones.

The problem is that you can't just insert a gene into a strand of DNA without effecting other things...and it's the "other" things that are causing the differences. A good example of a class A screw up was the L Tryptophan mess where GMO bacteria were used to manufacture L Tryptophan. People started to become very ill, and they found out that the bacteria were not just making L Trytophan but also toxins that were in the product. Lots of people lost their health over that human guinea pig experiment and the experiments on living animals and people continue as these products are put on the market with very little or only short term safety studies. It's an outrage.

Bluey...there is nothing natural about the way these crops are developed. Nothing. Read the book and educate yourself as to how they do this and then you will realize that it's not the same as evolution and natural selection. It is absurd to suggest that it is and only shows your ignorance of what they are doing.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:42 AM
I highly recommend reading the book "Seed of Deception." It is unbelievable how most of these GMO products were "approved" by the US govt and the shocking lack of safety testing on them. It's more politics than anything else.

They are not identical in nutritional content to the non GMO counterpart foods/plants either..that is well established now. Soy, for example, has more antinutrients in it..in other words, more of the "bad" stuff that is not good for us. BT corn got into the human food supply and there were major allergic reactions all over the US.

Bovine growth hormones now routinely given to dairy cattle to increase milk production are proven to persist in the milk through pasteurization and digestion and are tied to the increase in breast cancer in the US. That one blows my mind. I have a sister in law dying of breast cancer...so that really pissed me off to read. If you are going to drink milk and milk products, go organic. That's the only way to avoid the hormones.

The problem is that you can't just insert a gene into a strand of DNA without effecting other things...and it's the "other" things that are causing the differences. A good example of a class A screw up was the L Tryptophan mess where GMO bacteria were used to manufacture L Tryptophan. People started to become very ill, and they found out that the bacteria were not just making L Trytophan but also toxins that were in the product. Lots of people lost their health over that human guinea pig experiment and the experiments on living animals and people continue as these products are put on the market with very little or only short term safety studies. It's an outrage.

Bluey...there is nothing natural about the way these crops are developed. Nothing. Read the book and educate yourself as to how they do this and then you will realize that it's not the same as evolution and natural selection. It is absurd to suggest that it is and only shows your ignorance of what they are doing.

We have been around and around a few times already.;)

Just think what in this world all use that is "not natural"?

Electricity.

When humans first started using electricity, there were many detractors, some early scientists were hounded down and harassed as "dong the work of the devil" and yes, electricity is natural, but the general population didn't understand it and plenty of fearmongering went on and guess what, electricity can and has and will kill you too, look, they are right!:eek:

The same with any new technology we have applied to our lives, mechanizing factories, the internal engine and the improvement in transportation that brought, etc.

By the way, the reference to using hormones in beef was not about the ones used in these past few years in dairy, I don't know about those enough to say.
i have tried to explain this to you before and there is half a century of excellent research behind this:

http://www.maverickranch.com/beef-hormones-mdirf5.htm

---"MYTH – Cattle that receive "growth promotants" have high levels of hormones.

FACT – To answer this question, we would like to quote Dr. Gary Smith Ph.D., who is acknowledged as one of the world’s best known meat scientists. Dr. Smith is the former head of the Meat Science Department at Texas A &M and currently holds an endowed chair at Colorado State University. "The amount of natural hormones in the beef we consume is a tiny fraction of what our own bodies produces naturally. A man’s body produces 15,000 times the amount of estrogen hormones, daily, than he can get from 1 lb. of beef while a pregnant woman’s body produces several million times that amount."---


Very sorry about your sister and her breast cancer.:cry:

JB
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:08 AM
GMO-specific issues aside, I'm greatly concerned about the weeds that have already become resistant to Roundup since Roundup is now heavily, and sometimes solely, used, which was the whole point of the GMO stuff.

We already have enough trouble killing some really obnoxious weeds.

Tamara in TN
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:29 AM
It discusses crop failure, animal infertility and spontaneous abortions(due to a specific pathogen found in the GMO crops) in livestock fed these feeds, as well as the possibility of humans becoming infected.




well we'd have all died out a long time ago:lol::lol::lol:

Tamara

Daydream Believer
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:40 AM
We have been around and around a few times already.;)



Very sorry about your sister and her breast cancer.:cry:


Bluey for God's sake, go read my post again. I'm NOT talking about beef. I'm talking about the ones used in milk production. Right now the information I I am discussing is on the GMO hormones (rBGH) used in increasing milk production in dairy cattle.

http://www.preventcancer.com/press/editorials/march20_94.htm

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/rbgh/

Thanks on my sister in law. She has had surgery to remove a brain tumor now and they've found spots on her liver. We are afraid we are going to lose her. :sadsmile:

sk_pacer
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:42 AM
GMO-specific issues aside, I'm greatly concerned about the weeds that have already become resistant to Roundup since Roundup is now heavily, and sometimes solely, used, which was the whole point of the GMO stuff.

We already have enough trouble killing some really obnoxious weeds.

Herbicide resistance is nothing new - it has been so since the introduction of 2-4D decades ago. Years ago, we had a horrible problem with kochia weed and that little delight started with gardeners being fascinated with annual burning bush aka kochia weed. This horrible stuff was STILL sold through gardening centres as late as 1995 until pressure on the gov't to rule it noxious made it illegal to sell. Same with Purple Loosestrife, another delight that escaped from flower gardens. There are several other noxious weeds that are escaped garden plants and all escaped because they were already herbicide resistant.

Oh, and Round-Up came first, not the gmo plants to use it on. It was developed to deal with kochia, purple loosestrife, sow thistle, perennial toadflax, and several others that always were herbicide resistant. Still are, still are invasive and noxious, probably always will be.

Daydream Believer
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:42 AM
GMO-specific issues aside, I'm greatly concerned about the weeds that have already become resistant to Roundup since Roundup is now heavily, and sometimes solely, used, which was the whole point of the GMO stuff.

We already have enough trouble killing some really obnoxious weeds.

It was inevitable that it would happen. What they say is causing this is that the weeds on the edges of the field get a lower dose of Roundup when they spray the field and many survive the challenge of the spray. Over time, the weeds that survive become more and more resistant and survive to pass on their genes. In a fairly short time we have seen some very resistant and tough weeds develop to the point where roundup is becoming useless.

Tamara in TN
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:43 AM
I can't believe that people would get hysterical over Round up unless they just don't understand the other burndown options out there.

Tamara

deltawave
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:05 AM
Still waiting for a dispassionate, even-handed, no-agenda synthesis of the topic. :sigh:

Daydream Believer
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:09 AM
Still waiting for a dispassionate, even-handed, no-agenda synthesis of the topic. :sigh:

Read that book I mentioned earlier. It is footnoted and based on science not politics.

JB
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:13 AM
My point is, none of this is fixing anything, and it's just causing more problems.

Yes, we've always had issues with herbicide-resistant plants and pesticide-resistant bugs. It's not helping things by making a desirable plant {insert favorite herbicide}-resistant so you can use that product on the weeds that are preventing full potential of growing that product, because then that herbicide is ALL that gets used, and then we have even MORE undesirables resistant to it. We're going to run out of chemicals, or they will be so nasty that we start having issues eating the desirable plants.

wendy
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:14 AM
The problem is that you can't just insert a gene into a strand of DNA without effecting other things...and it's the "other" things that are causing the differences.

you realize that people have been creating GMO crops forever? NOTHING we grow is "natural"? you don't think the "corn" or "alfalfa" strains we grow existed before we started tinkering with their genetics? selective breeding does the same thing as direct DNA modification except with far less precision. You talk about "you can't insert a gene in ... without affecting other things" but selective breeding affects FAR more "other things" than putting one gene into the plant. The reason the regulatory bodies don't demand "safety tests" for these products is because if they demanded more tests for a directly precisely DNA modified plant they'd also have to demand safety testing for EVERY. SINGLE. STRAIN. of plant ever grown. Also every single breed of cattle (selective breeding= genetic alterations), etc.
The only REAL worry about GMO crops is the possible spread of pesticide resistance to other plants, and the heavy use of pesticides.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:17 AM
Still waiting for a dispassionate, even-handed, no-agenda synthesis of the topic. :sigh:

That is very hard to come by, as the problems here are not of the science behind all of this, but of international trade and what fits each country and what doesn't and what spin they can put to keep out what doesn't fit their goals.
See my example on beef implant hormones.

All countries have a very important balance of trade, is what keeps the world going 'round, what gives some countries power over others.
Agricultural products are one of the most important of all that is traded.

ALL involved at that level, whole countries and the "big-ag" multi-national companies involved have an agenda, it is imperative they do and push it.
That is the way the game is played at that level and how the rest of us fare depends on them, if we like it or not.

The more humans we have and the numbers are becoming staggering, straining resources and the distribution of them, the more important all those questions become.
Once we realize the extent of that, it is scary, yes, but not because of hormones or GMOs, but because all that is so important to what we can do or are kept from providing, all on some power plays by this or that group.

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:21 AM
Yes DDT was a FANTASTIC idea and that has worked out so well for people all over the world & the environment!

Heck I don't know why we don't just spray it directly on all our newborns! That'd kill 'dem buggers!



:sigh:

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:24 AM
Yes DDT was a FANTASTIC idea and that has worked out so well for people all over the world & the environment!

Heck I don't know why we don't just spray it directly on all our newborns! That'd kill 'dem buggers!



:sigh:

Oh, it was for it's time, it practically eradicated malaria from the USA.
There is serious talk of reintroducing DDT carefully where it is still endemic in some parts of the world.

Malaria has crippled and killed many more people ever than any harm DDT did:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18157325

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:26 AM
Still waiting for a dispassionate, even-handed, no-agenda synthesis of the topic. :sigh:

GMOs are are good? Golden rice, going to save millions of children from problems with vit-A deficiency, adding what is already available in other plants into rice.

GMOs that are "bad"? Round-up ready, for the exact reasons already mentioned. Monsanto is creating a legion of "loyal" customers because if they keep using that crap there will be NO other options available to farmers then shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the almighty overlords.

Do we need to get into this again? Google "India Farmer Suicides".

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:28 AM
...Malaria has crippled and killed many more people ever than any harm DDT did.

So you would rather live in a word with out eagles, belugas, human beings...

Malaria is a terrible disease but we have so many new and innovative ways of dealing with the source of the problem, just peaking on the horizon, we will never need to resort back to DDT.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:32 AM
GMOs are are good? Golden rice, going to save millions of children from problems with vit-A deficiency, adding what is already available in other plants into rice.

GMOs that are "bad"? Round-up ready, for the exact reasons already mentioned. Monsanto is creating a legion of "loyal" customers because if they keep using that crap there will be NO other options available to farmers then shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the almighty overlords.

Do we need to get into this again? Google "India Farmer Suicides".

Nothing is perfect and everything we do will have some consequences for some.
No one is disputing that.

What is in question is, what is the balance of good to bad results and can we make the process even better and how?

You can find bad in everything in life if you look hard enough.
That is where common sense and good judgment comes in.
You choose to do what is best with what you have.
THAT is what the discussions are over, I think.

OF COURSE you can find bad results in anything we do, especially newer things we do and some that are misused.
THAT doesn't negate all that is good why we do the things we do.:yes:

See the DDT example YOU so handily provided.;)

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:38 AM
So you would rather live in a word with out eagles, belugas, human beings...

Malaria is a terrible disease but we have so many new and innovative ways of dealing with the source of the problem, just peaking on the horizon, we will never need to resort back to DDT.

That you state there is a fallacy.:no:
We are not talking of blanketing the world with DDT.:eek:
That is fear mongering.

The talk is of using DDT like a scalpel, to eliminate certain mosquitos in very specific areas, like some places in LA, where malaria is becoming a serious problem again.

Those kind of wild statements, "we will kill all in the world with DDT!" is what is harmful to trying to work thru many faceted problems.:(

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:48 AM
That you state there is a fallacy.:no:
We are not talking of blanketing the world with DDT.:eek:
That is fear mongering...

So you would like to refute the great deal of science explaining how DDT gets into and travels through the food chain?

So if we use it in Africa we're going to kill some stupid fish that have evolved for thousands of years into amazing and fantastical creature, then some beautiful birds the migrate all over the continent. Maybe if we're lucky we'll get some zebra drinking the water, I mean there are too many of those anyway right? And maybe just for good measure some lions too, so who cares?

DDT starts showing up in mother's breast milk, who cares? They are poor African children anyway, they have no votes, no rights, no money. They aren't going to buy Nikes, or shop at Walmart. LET THEM EAT CAKE!



We are all children of the Earth

Simple actions lead to great change, and when we choose to be selfish and release mighty plagues upon the earth because they are "cheaper" or easier, we are creating problems larger then ourselves.

When we do good by offering a helping hand to those people less fortunate we create good larger then ourselves.

Human beings are just starting to understand the impact we are having, finding creatures we never even imagine existed in a grain of soil, pulling apart and putting back together the very fabric of our existence. It is an exciting, wonderful time.

But when the people pulling those strings have only monetary gain in mind, no good will ever come of their actions. We can not consume, use up and spit out our home, we'll have no where to live.


I need to build an angry dome...

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:53 AM
So you would like to refute the great deal of science explaining how DDT gets into and travels through the food chain?

So if we use it in Africa we're going to kill some stupid fish that have evolved for thousands of years into amazing and fantastical creature, then some beautiful birds the migrate all over the continent. Maybe if we're lucky we'll get some zebra drinking the water, I mean there are too many of those anyway right? And maybe just for good measure some lions too, so who cares?

DDT starts showing up in mother's breast milk, who cares? They are poor African children anyway, they have no votes, no rights, no money. They aren't going to buy Nikes, or shop at Walmart. LET THEM EAT CAKE!



We are all children of the Earth

Simple actions lead to great change, and when we choose to be selfish and release mighty plagues upon the earth because they are "cheaper" or easier, we are creating problems larger then ourselves.

When we do good by offering a helping hand to those people less fortunate we create good larger then ourselves.

Human beings are just starting to understand the impact we are having, finding creatures we never even imagine existed in a grain of soil, pulling apart and putting back together the very fabric of our existence. It is an exciting, wonderful time.

But when the people pulling those strings have only monetary gain in mind, no good will ever come of their actions. We can not consume, use up and spit out our home, we'll have no where to live.


I need to build an angry dome...

For an answer, see my post #22 above.:yes:

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:57 AM
So once again you have nothing to back up the happy-go-lucky-progress-is-everything theories you've been spitting out? And when backed into a corner with hard science you're going back to the 'we are all crazy' theory.

Here California Department of Health http://www.ehib.org/paper.jsp?paper_key=WORLDWIDE_TRENDS_DDT_MILK

Perhaps the fundamental difference between our philosophy is that I am far more interested in questions then answers. Why are we doing this? What can we do to do it better? How is this effecting other aspects of our lives?

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:01 AM
Back to the OP the US is really dragging their butts around about GMO. Just following the bouncing $.

The UK is being very progressive because average citizens are fighting back. Canada is finally starting to move forward with at least labeling GMO foods.

Feel like GMO is harmful/could be harmful/you're not sure but you'd really like them to do more research? Speak up for yourself!!

There is no question that we we feed the things we eat ends up in our own bodies.

carolprudm
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:06 AM
Not a problem. I have a patent on a system for the bioremediation of DDT

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:10 AM
So once again you have nothing to back up the happy-go-lucky-progress-is-everything theories you've been spitting out? And when backed into a corner with hard science you're going back to the 'we are all crazy' theory.

Here California Department of Health http://www.ehib.org/paper.jsp?paper_key=WORLDWIDE_TRENDS_DDT_MILK

Perhaps the fundamental difference between our philosophy is that I am far more interested in questions then answers. Why are we doing this? What can we do to do it better? How is this effecting other aspects of our lives?

Right.
Just don't stick some wires in the light socket and you will be fine, really.:)

JB
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:21 AM
Hungary just plowed under 1000 acres of corn because it became infected with the (illegal) GMO corn. They won't tolerate it.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:31 AM
Back to the OP the US is really dragging their butts around about GMO. Just following the bouncing $.

The UK is being very progressive because average citizens are fighting back. Canada is finally starting to move forward with at least labeling GMO foods.

Feel like GMO is harmful/could be harmful/you're not sure but you'd really like them to do more research? Speak up for yourself!!

There is no question that we we feed the things we eat ends up in our own bodies.

Ok, I will give you a serious answer this time.
You are wrongly assuming you are the only one that is asking questions.
What you may not realize is that asking questions is what science is all about.
Questions are asked all the time, is what gives the answers we call scientific proof.

What we do or don't do is relevant to asking those questions and working with the answers we have.

Some may or not agree with what is done with the answers we have, others have other agendas driving their acceptance or not of what science comes up with.

As I said, the questions you may bring have already been asked, answers produced and the results, that we do use, how and which ones of the GMOs we do is the result of those discussions at a scientific and political levels as those are played out today.
Just as the hormones in beef questions were 20 years ago.

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:48 AM
Right.
Just don't stick some wires in the light socket and you will be fine, really.:)

Right, crazy person because I want a better world for my children, and their children and their children's children... Because I dare question the accepted norm. Because I point out to you that human beings have never known everything about anything. And we have made some HUGE mistakes over our history so we should never just assume we know what the consequences of our actions will be.

As George Bernard Shaw wrote: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

I am a very unreasonable woman, a woman who believes in science and the rights of all living creatures, and damn proud of it. I don't sit out in a bunker with a tin-foil hat on my head, but I do see far better ways to accomplish what we collectively want out of life.

I'm not really on-board with the "don't live under the hydro lines" people, but when dairy farms have shown a marked decreases in milk production... numbers don't lie.

I will never argue that there isn't political interference when it comes to agricultural products and trade, but just as before there is no backing behind your statements Bluey.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand the great mysteries of the world! I believe you understand far less then your know.

You don't know what you don't know, until you do; and if you are are not even able to entertain the thought that you are wrong about anything, Well then I guess you'll just never be "wrong".

Yes there are studies out there that say we don't know about GMO food. There isn't a single unbiased scientist that will tell you "I know all about GMO foods and the impact they will have on humanity".

I told you before, and I'll say it again. You come back with solid scientific proof that corn fed beef is better then grass in nutrition & environmental impact, with an unbiased study (NOT funded by an sort of beef organiziation) and I will go out and order a truck load for my calves.

This comes straight back to GMOs. Find an unbiased, peer-reviewed study that shows definitively that we understand the effects of any GMO, that we are able to contain and deal with any impact it has on the environment around the field it is planted in, and that it will not pass on any harmful effects to the livestock, wildlife or humans that come in contact with it and I'll shut up.

Until then I'm going to continue to be unreasonable, concerned, informed, health-conscious, environmentally concerned, loving, hopeful & optimistic. Because I do believe in a better world for everyone, not just the few who are so fortunate to afford such smug self-satisfaction.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 12:01 PM
Again, you are assuming wrongly if you think only you cares for this world and the children of this world.
Just think if that makes sense.:confused:

I have answered before that grain or grass fed beef, when you consider all and I mean all, as several recent studies have done, some I already linked to before, comes to about 2.1 to 2.8 or 9 FOR grain feeding of beef.

In a few simple to understand words, grain finishing that same individual you would slaughter off grass is about 1/3 more efficient, carries a third less carbon footprint, gives us that much more meat from much less TOTAL resources.

Yes, you may choose not to believe it, go by outdated old theories, that many love to repeat still today, when we know better.

What you choose to believe, that only you can determine.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts and data.;)

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 12:09 PM
:lol: Bluey for the last time, unless you are going to listen to everyone else opposing you theories, you're just arguing with yourself.

I'm not a Mennonite and I'm not Amish. In fact I'm in a farming web-designer so I think that is the polar opposite... Perhaps you should listen to a few TED talks if you don't understand what I mean by applying NEW theories to old knowledge. The progress in dealing with malaria specifically is astounding.

You did not produce 1 study that was un-biased or peer-reviwed, I asked several times for the paper (not the article citing it) you originally linked and never got it. Never mind it came from a scientist widely discredited for her obvious bias...


Must be a very happy shinny bubble :rolleyes:

danceronice
Aug. 23, 2011, 12:11 PM
Yeah, they're just Africans. Who cares if they die of horrific, easily-prevented mosquito-borne diseases? Or starve because European members of the UN are terrified that someone might PLANT some of that GMO grain in the famine-relief shipments? I mean, there are some unusual species of fish down there, and someone might possibly maybe get sick (because people would just spray willy-nilly.) Dammit, my grandkids deserve to see some rare fish in their native habitat--why don't those stupid Africans go buy organic at Whole Foods, anyway?

Probably shouldn't hand out vaccines, either. Someone somewhere with a fancy science degree said they have mercury and make your kids autistic. Don't those Africans know enough not get sick?

deltawave
Aug. 23, 2011, 12:31 PM
Read that book I mentioned earlier. It is footnoted and based on science not politics.

Scientific references do not exclude a great big agenda. :)

When the tag-line for the book includes "industry manipulation", "political collusion" and "dangerous" when discussing the topic, I have a hard time believing there is no agenda. :) And words like those are hardly dispassionate.

I'm look for dry and pedantic, not sensational.

deltawave
Aug. 23, 2011, 12:37 PM
Pointing out before I skedaddle in horror at the rampant black vs. white bias that science is BY DEFINITION being revised and reworked all the time. That means acknowledging, in hindsight, mistakes and things that we would have done differently IF ONLY WE HAD KNOWN. SO how do we come to KNOW things? Mmmm, by experimentation. Making our best effort and reviewing the results.

Even cold, dry science can be spun and corrupted, viewed with a monstrous slant and ignored selectively. But the process remains the only real way of gathering information. :)

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 12:46 PM
I'm pretty sure there are some people who have "experimented" on human beings in the past. Last I heard civilized people reputed them as monsters not visionaries.

DOI why would we willy-nilly spray DDT when there are people on the verge CURES that kill malaria not the environment.
Why should true scientific vision not trump the easy and cheap?

http://www.ted.com/search?q=malaria&page=1

And I'm on side with golden rice.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 12:57 PM
:lol: Bluey for the last time, unless you are going to listen to everyone else opposing you theories, you're just arguing with yourself.

I'm not a Mennonite and I'm not Amish. In fact I'm in a farming web-designer so I think that is the polar opposite... Perhaps you should listen to a few TED talks if you don't understand what I mean by applying NEW theories to old knowledge. The progress in dealing with malaria specifically is astounding.

You did not produce 1 study that was un-biased or peer-reviwed, I asked several times for the paper (not the article citing it) you originally linked and never got it. Never mind it came from a scientist widely discredited for her obvious bias...


Must be a very happy shinny bubble :rolleyes:

Maybe you ought to look past your own obvious shiny bubble?;)

That one last and well received and reviewed article I linked to, finally, when my computer did let me, is a compendium of several other articles and building on them.
The data is there, as of now undisputed, if you like the scientist or not that presented it.
Not only that, the United Nations admitted their own often still quoted 2006 article was "incomplete", on researching the study I quoted and others further, retracted the conclusions they came to in their politically very convenient one, for the summit that was used for.:p

What many don't seen to understand is that science is not about being right or wrong in itself, is about getting enough to support what you want to state, with the information you have.
EVERYONE in science knows they are right only until someone else can come with other that may show them right, or easily wrong.
BUT, we need some to work with, so what is uncontested is assumed to be right and that is what we build on, best we can.

Again, you can choose to ignore all that, your prerogative always.:yes:

Daydream Believer
Aug. 23, 2011, 01:20 PM
Scientific references do not exclude a great big agenda. :)

When the tag-line for the book includes "industry manipulation", "political collusion" and "dangerous" when discussing the topic, I have a hard time believing there is no agenda. :) And words like those are hardly dispassionate.

I'm look for dry and pedantic, not sensational.

Good luck finding a source of information on GMOs that does not take a side. It is a volatile topic. I did not find the book to be sensationalist at all. It did a good job of giving an accurate history of how the GMOs got started as well as the "science" in how it is dine, and shocking lack of safety studies conducted before these products were introduced into the food supply and were allowed to spread the genes via crosspollination with non Gmo crops.

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 02:30 PM
(beef: All at least co-authored by the same woman! Go back and read it again and for the last time you were the only one talking about the UN study, I had half a dozen others you obviously didn't read)

At the end of the day if everyone was giving the option of voting on whether GMOs should be allowed into their food, so that a public decision could be reached; as well as proper and informative labeling so that personal decision could be reached. There'd almost be no issue here.

Americans have not been given a choice (neither have Canadian) but have had GMOs thrust upon them and not enough citizens seemed to understand the scope, or even know about the problem in the first place.

We can not continue to allow our selves to be led around by the nose by corporations who do not have public interest at heart! It's insanity!

Guilherme
Aug. 23, 2011, 03:57 PM
I'm pretty sure there are some people who have "experimented" on human beings in the past. Last I heard civilized people reputed them as monsters not visionaries.

DOI why would we willy-nilly spray DDT when there are people on the verge CURES that kill malaria not the environment.
Why should true scientific vision not trump the easy and cheap?

http://www.ted.com/search?q=malaria&page=1

And I'm on side with golden rice.

There's a rather large difference between being "on the verge" of something and actually being there. We've been "on the verge" of cold fusion for a couple of generations. So far we ain't made it.

There's lots of other stuff that looks really good in a lab or a scientific paper but turns out to be a problem in real life. "Bio-fuel" (ethanol, diesel, etc.) may be fine examples.

The rise of diseases that were vanquished generations ago because of a rising tide of scientific illiteracy (to go along with our rising tides of economic illiteracy, math. illiteracy, etc.) should suggest that maybe our parents and grandparents actually knew some valuable stuff.

You design farm websites. How does that relate to designing farms? How does designing farms relate to actually running them?

G.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 04:17 PM
There's a rather large difference between being "on the verge" of something and actually being there. We've been "on the verge" of cold fusion for a couple of generations. So far we ain't made it.

There's lots of other stuff that looks really good in a lab or a scientific paper but turns out to be a problem in real life. "Bio-fuel" (ethanol, diesel, etc.) may be fine examples.

The rise of diseases that were vanquished generations ago because of a rising tide of scientific illiteracy (to go along with our rising tides of economic illiteracy, math. illiteracy, etc.) should suggest that maybe our parents and grandparents actually knew some valuable stuff.

You design farm websites. How does that relate to designing farms? How does designing farms relate to actually running them?

G.

:D
:winkgrin:
:lol:

Everyone is an instant expert in any topic, "they heard a comment on that topic in the news bite a few days ago".:p

I have an opinion on web sites, I can tell you if I like them and why, but know about web sites, how to form them and why, heck no.

We used to handle our own books and thought we were very good at it.
Then got an accountant firm, when tax laws were becoming very complicated and wow, we quickly found out how much we didn't know.:eek:

Then, our accountants have been doing farm and ranch taxes for big and small business for decades, but they tell you they don't know the business of farming or ranching, they just know if the figures make sense and if they follow the IRS guidelines and rules, that are continuously changing, that is their expertise.

Smart people know what they know and when to listen to those that know what they don't know.:cool:

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 04:18 PM
I just believe that pouring DDT into water ways then turning a blind eye to the damage it causes, is... what's the say? Robing peter to save paul or something?

We're going to save a few (okay thousand) children from Malaria when there other other ways to prevent it, and so it's okay that African woman are passing on DDT to their infants through breast milk because that's what we've always done?

Disregarding the huge environmental impact it has.

My opinions on agricultural problems has nothing to do with my web design. It does have a great deal to do with the reason we decided to start 'hobby farming'. But I feel like you were trying to make a point I wasn't following.

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 04:20 PM
So Blue you're going to send your stuff off the accountant then not even glance over his work?

Equilibrium
Aug. 23, 2011, 04:21 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't GM things labled back home? They have to be here which may be a reason for my flippant attitude. I've been given a choice. Personally it's a minor risk to me, but I am able to make a choice. It can't be that bad as it's one of the leading feeds here and has been for years. I know the non GM stuff was harmful to my horses and I was absolutely fet up looking at a skinny broodmare and skinny jumper despite putting tons of food into them. And sick of trying to gather all the ingredients for a meal that wasn't working.

Terri

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 04:24 PM
So Blue you're going to send your stuff off the accountant then not even glance over his work?

Sorry, that question doesn't make any sense.:confused:

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 04:41 PM
Sorry, that question doesn't make any sense.:confused:

You're leaving the fox guarding the hen house.

Monsanto has no one's best interests but their own in mind. You should send your tax stuff off to a professional, they can point out tons of ways to improve your business, but if you don't watch what is going on and blindly believe every word they say - well that is just how people get bilked out of thousands of dollars.

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 04:42 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't GM things labled back home? ...

No they aren't, that was my point. Everyone should be given the choice.

I bet most people don't realize Kraft has been using GMO for years.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 04:54 PM
You're leaving the fox guarding the hen house.

Monsanto has no one's best interests but their own in mind. You should send your tax stuff off to a professional, they can point out tons of ways to improve your business, but if you don't watch what is going on and blindly believe every word they say - well that is just how people get bilked out of thousands of dollars.

That still doesn't make sense, because we "don't send our tax stuff off".
We do all our book keeping, handle our own business.
The accountants get the books at the end of our fiscal year, look them over, ask us questions to be sure all is done correctly and approve of them.
They audit the books, they don't tell us anything about how to run any business and don't have any way to "bilk us out of thousands of dollars".

How much do you know accounting, to think accountants "bilk clients out of thousands of dollars"?:confused:

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 05:05 PM
Sorry Bluey, got my hands full, I skimmed thought you said you were sending your books right off to the accountants to deal with themselves.

Not being involved enough in your own business and completely trusting other people to make the correct decisions/always be honest about any facet involving money is faulty logic. People have been bilked by accountants, investment brokers, all sorts of professionals when they take the hands-off approach.

I feel the same way about any large industry. If we, the consumers, don't hold their feet to the fire we're giving them free license to do as they wish.

Daydream Believer
Aug. 23, 2011, 05:05 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't GM things labled back home? They have to be here which may be a reason for my flippant attitude. I've been given a choice. Personally it's a minor risk to me, but I am able to make a choice. It can't be that bad as it's one of the leading feeds here and has been for years. I know the non GM stuff was harmful to my horses and I was absolutely fet up looking at a skinny broodmare and skinny jumper despite putting tons of food into them. And sick of trying to gather all the ingredients for a meal that wasn't working.

Terri

No, no labeling requirements in the US at all. Any effort to get labels has been met with strong resistance from the corporations producing this stuff as they are fully aware that most Americans do not want to eat GMO foods and it would hit them hard in the bottom line. I personally think accurate labeling and declaring what is GMO and what isn't would quickly bring a huge demand for non GMO's back into the market.

Again, it is all political. Monsanto and other big business outfits buy out the politicians to back them. It has been this way from the start. These products were pushed onto the market with very short test periods and despite known issues like breast cancer risks and rBGH, nothing is done. If you read that article, they've known that rBGH increases the risk of breast cancer since the mid 1990's and NOTHING has been done.

deltawave
Aug. 23, 2011, 05:30 PM
I rarely take "sides" on anything more complex than the big societal "never-nevers". I'm a middle-of-the road kind of person. I can see the potential concerns and the potential benefits of GMO. Rarely (if ever) is there a clear black/white analysis of a topic like this. But it's also rare to find someone who hasn't made up their mind one way or the other. :sigh:

carolprudm
Aug. 23, 2011, 06:04 PM
Why is it that no one seems worried about GMO insulin? Considering how widespread it is there don't seem to be problems with it.

JSwan
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:10 PM
Smart people know what they know and when to listen to those that know what they don't know.:cool:

You know, Bluey - for someone who fled an oppressive and controlling government, and came to this country to enjoy freedom, you sure seem to want to deny that same freedom to others.

It's very curious.

In these threads - you ridicule those who want nothing more than to know what the government is permitting to be placed into the food supply.

Your attitude - is - OBEY. Do not question. If you question, you are stupid. (and you even add the emoticons to drive home the point).

You seem to want all Americans to sit back and let the people in charge decide for us. Because "they" know better. Because "they" are in charge. Because "they" know the Truth and dissenters or those who question "them" just don't know what they are talking about.

It's just very odd - because in the country you fled "they" didn't exactly give a crap about things like freedom of expression, choice, liberty, or basic human rights.

Since when does a government and large corporations hold the corner on what is true or good? When did you or others decide what I can or cannot decide what to eat or drink?

Are GMO foods bad in the long run? I don't know.

You know what? Neither do you. And the truth is - neither do the scientists and researchers.

We are told, over and over again - that this or that drug is "safe". So we take it - only to have babies born without arms. Or women to become sterile. Or people to have heart attacks or stroke.

Only after enough people die, injured or maimed is the drug taken off the market. Not so safe after all, is it. Oops. So much for government and companies having the corner on the Truth.

Governments allowing introduction of invasive species. Only to find out years later that - oops - made a mistake. And billions of dollars are spent trying to eradicate those species - to no avail.

Government and companies do not know what is right. They do not know some all encompassing truth. And neither has the right to control the lives of people. Not to that extent.

So please - enough with the "you're too stupid to know any better just eat the glowing bread and STFU." You DO NOT know for a fact that what is being done to our food supply is safe. Neither do I. Neither does the gov't or the companies producing these items.

What they know is - they can do it. Not that they should.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person wanting to know what is in the food they are eating. And there is nothing wrong with a person not trusting the gov't or a corporation to act in their best interest.

Because neither have proven to be trustworthy.

It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned that our entire global food supply now depends on a few strains of grains, and a few species of domestic livestock.

It's also reasonable to be very concerned that our global food supply depends almost entirely on a handful of mega corporations - and those mega corporations heavily lobby politicians who are so immature they post pictures of their genitals on the internet. Or chase interns around the office. Or are so stupid they don't why an island doesn't float all over the ocean.

Hardly inspires confidence.

For me - the jury is out on GMO foods. Because humans have been doing it - slowly - for thousands of years. But I am not sure what is being done has no repercussions. The problem with introducing species into the environment is that you can't take them back out again. It's not like a drug that can be taken off the market. It's permanent.

But I do have concerns about a lot of what is being done to our food supply - and the amount of control gov't seems eager to exert over my life.

And if anyone should understand that concern - it is you.

deltawave
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:12 PM
When the alternatives are beef and pork insulin, with all the dreadful attendant sensitivities and cross reactivity, I'd say that genetically-engineered human insulin is a GODSEND. There are all kinds of problems with insulin, in fact, but probably none of them due to the fact that it is Frankenstein-ish in its origins. The disease in this case is far, far worse than the putative risks of the treatment we currently have. :)

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:19 PM
When the alternatives are beef and pork insulin, with all the dreadful attendant sensitivities and cross reactivity, I'd say that genetically-engineered human insulin is a GODSEND. There are all kinds of problems with insulin, in fact, but probably none of them due to the fact that it is Frankenstein-ish in its origins. The disease in this case is far, far worse than the putative risks of the treatment we currently have. :)

I read somewhere, but don't have tried to confirm it, that in China now they have some cows that are giving human breast milk.
Don't know the whole story on that, but the idea that we can have whatever we need thru some biological process ought to make all those scared of straight "chemicals" very happy, why become obstructionists about it?
With the proper safeguards, of course.

The greatest advantage of all these research paths are that some day we can alter our own bodies to improve where they are not working right in a way we can't quite yet today.

deltawave
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:26 PM
Or, if we stupidly take it too far, we genetically engineer ourselves into big trouble. Both equally plausible. But progress has never been hindered (much) by caution. It's our nature to reach, and to over-reach sometimes. We have to realize it's no different now than when we were just carving bones and pounding rocks and seeing what happened if we struck flint and shiny stones together. The stakes are higher, though.

Personally I'm rooting for the planet and Mother Nature to win in the end. :)

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:26 PM
You know, Bluey - for someone who fled an oppressive and controlling government, and came to this country to enjoy freedom, you sure seem to want to deny that same freedom to others.

It's very curious.

In these threads - you ridicule those who want nothing more than to know what the government is permitting to be placed into the food supply.

Your attitude - is - OBEY. Do not question. If you question, you are stupid. (and you even add the emoticons to drive home the point).

You seem to want all Americans to sit back and let the people in charge decide for us. Because "they" know better. Because "they" are in charge. Because "they" know the Truth and dissenters or those who question "them" just don't know what they are talking about.

It's just very odd - because in the country you fled "they" didn't exactly give a crap about things like freedom of expression, choice, liberty, or basic human rights.

Since when does a government and large corporations hold the corner on what is true or good? When did you or others decide what I can or cannot decide what to eat or drink?

Are GMO foods bad in the long run? I don't know.

You know what? Neither do you. And the truth is - neither do the scientists and researchers.

We are told, over and over again - that this or that drug is "safe". So we take it - only to have babies born without arms. Or women to become sterile. Or people to have heart attacks or stroke.

Only after enough people die, injured or maimed is the drug taken off the market. Not so safe after all, is it. Oops. So much for government and companies having the corner on the Truth.

Governments allowing introduction of invasive species. Only to find out years later that - oops - made a mistake. And billions of dollars are spent trying to eradicate those species - to no avail.

Government and companies do not know what is right. They do not know some all encompassing truth. And neither has the right to control the lives of people. Not to that extent.

So please - enough with the "you're too stupid to know any better just eat the glowing bread and STFU." You DO NOT know for a fact that what is being done to our food supply is safe. Neither do I. Neither does the gov't or the companies producing these items.

What they know is - they can do it. Not that they should.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person wanting to know what is in the food they are eating. And there is nothing wrong with a person not trusting the gov't or a corporation to act in their best interest.

Because neither have proven to be trustworthy.

It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned that our entire global food supply now depends on a few strains of grains, and a few species of domestic livestock.

It's also reasonable to be very concerned that our global food supply depends almost entirely on a handful of mega corporations - and those mega corporations heavily lobby politicians who are so immature they post pictures of their genitals on the internet. Or chase interns around the office. Or are so stupid they don't why an island doesn't float all over the ocean.

Hardly inspires confidence.

For me - the jury is out on GMO foods. Because humans have been doing it - slowly - for thousands of years. But I am not sure what is being done has no repercussions. The problem with introducing species into the environment is that you can't take them back out again. It's not like a drug that can be taken off the market. It's permanent.

But I do have concerns about a lot of what is being done to our food supply - and the amount of control gov't seems eager to exert over my life.

And if anyone should understand that concern - it is you.

About half your post is a pure personal attack, unbecoming of you.:(

I do think that you are misinterpreting my intentions and meaning.
I am for science, I am sad that so many don't know even the basics, for what they post and worse, don't want to learn.

There are several neo-neo luddites here, that are against anything that smells of science, seem to consider it terrible because some of it was mis applied, didn't work right, had unintended consequences, etc.

Well, nothing is perfect in life, unrealistic to expect not to have times what we do doesn't work, but we keep improving and learning.
That we do keep trying and learning I think is great.:)
That many keep only seeing when it doesn't work and harp on that, never giving credit to science for all the wonderful ways our lives are better, well, then I have objections to that.

When we were talking about DDT, someone posted that they had a patented method of neutralizing DDT after it had been used for the intended purpose, so the claim that it is lingering in the environment is not a valid one any more.
That is where science takes us, it gives ways to do things and then do them better and tweaking what doesn't work, but we have to give the scientific process a chance.

I have stated time and again that science is not immutable, keeps changing as it learns more.
I have responded to the specific questions posed, not made a blanket defense as science being perfect.:confused:

poltroon
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:29 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't GM things labled back home? They have to be here which may be a reason for my flippant attitude. I've been given a choice. Personally it's a minor risk to me, but I am able to make a choice. It can't be that bad as it's one of the leading feeds here and has been for years. I know the non GM stuff was harmful to my horses and I was absolutely fet up looking at a skinny broodmare and skinny jumper despite putting tons of food into them. And sick of trying to gather all the ingredients for a meal that wasn't working.

Terri

No, GMO foods are not labeled here; and indeed, unless you eat all organic, it is probably impossible to avoid them. The USDA estimate is that something like 80% of the US food supply is GMO. There is no process that separates out Roundup Ready soy from non-GMO conventional soy (if there still is any), and the same is true for corn. Rice out of the southeast is all contaminated with GMOs... and that was an accident, because Bayer's unapproved Liberty Link rice escaped the experimental field. The USDA's solution was to approve Liberty Link rice on the spot.

All High Fructose Corn Syrup is also GMO.

So no, not really a choice here.

deltawave
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:39 PM
Corn syrup is not, in and of itself, a genetically modified organism. It has no DNA, no genes, it is merely a chemical compound. In fact, very much like the insulin mentioned above. If you did a spectrophotometric analysis (or whatever it is that's used to identify molecular structure these days) I doubt if you (or your body) could identify any difference between corn syrup today and corn syrup from 100 years ago.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:39 PM
Or, if we stupidly take it too far, we genetically engineer ourselves into big trouble. Both equally plausible. But progress has never been hindered (much) by caution. It's our nature to reach, and to over-reach sometimes. We have to realize it's no different now than when we were just carving bones and pounding rocks and seeing what happened if we struck flint and shiny stones together. The stakes are higher, though.

Personally I'm rooting for the planet and Mother Nature to win in the end. :)

We could also have died off while still cavemen, if some mutation then would have worked against our survival, or any time after then and we may yet.

We need to realize that yes, not only are we finite as individuals, but as a species and as everything is in this planet and universe also.
We are playing with the cards dealt us and I say, warts and all, we are giving a good account of ourselves, although that also will depend on when someone looks in on us, if we are sinking or swimming right then.;)

deltawave
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:46 PM
Well, I for one think we could be doing a WHOLE lot better being stewards of the planet, but OTOH we are (IMO) sort of hard-wired to be acquisitive, domineering, ambitious and rather ruthless as a species. So like 'most any other species, we appear to be doing what comes naturally. We certainly have the brainpower to think twice about things and to husband our natural resources in a wise fashion, but too many other things seem to get in the way of pure intellect and doing the wise thing. :sigh:

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:47 PM
Corn syrup is not, in and of itself, a genetically modified organism. It has no DNA, no genes, it is merely a chemical compound. In fact, very much like the insulin mentioned above. If you did a spectrophotometric analysis (or whatever it is that's used to identify molecular structure these days) I doubt if you (or your body) could identify any difference between corn syrup today and corn syrup from 100 years ago.

That is one reason, for what I read, why GMO regulation would have been a nightmare.
You can't regulate so much you could not measure to say it was or not from GMO produce.
Much of the labeling today, where they use them, is just not that easy to determine what is what if someone is trying to test for those modifications.

Regulations provide for all GMO products to contain certain marker genes and the basic products do, but once processed, many of those are not there any more.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:53 PM
Well, I for one think we could be doing a WHOLE lot better being stewards of the planet, but OTOH we are (IMO) sort of hard-wired to be acquisitive, domineering, ambitious and rather ruthless as a species. So like 'most any other species, we appear to be doing what comes naturally. We certainly have the brainpower to think twice about things and to husband our natural resources in a wise fashion, but too many other things seem to get in the way of pure intellect and doing the wise thing. :sigh:

Right, we as humans are trying to do the best we can manage, as smaller groups, not so much, as individuals, hardly, or we would not be posting on computers, but helping in the famine countries.
Seriously, I think we are getting better, if some idiot doesn't blow the whole earth up first in a blaze of personal glory.
I am the glass half full type person and hopefully for all, we are right and if we are wrong, we all lose.:(

JSwan
Aug. 23, 2011, 08:57 PM
About half your post is a pure personal attack, unbecoming of you.:(


No it wasn't. I wrote that I don't understand you - because, like some in my family, you fled a gov't that sought to impose its version of the "truth" on its citizens.

That was an observation. I find it curious.

You do ridicule and patronize those who merely wish to live less... conventional lives. You even used an example of turning your books over to an accountant. And you're right - there is a time when we say - I've reached the limit of my knowledge and it's time to turn things over to a professional.

But even when you do that - it does not stop you from continuing to learn. There is a difference between turning something over to a professional - and abdicating responsibility.

You appear to want people to blindly follow whatever the conventional wisdom is. Whether it's the beef council or Monsanto or ConAgra or whatever.

To be fair - the people in those enterprises know a great deal. A tremendous amount. But they don't know everything - and they don't hold a corner on the truth.

If a person wants to be a vegetarian or vegan - that's ok. It's their body - their life - their choice. If I want to eat grass fed beef - it's my body - my life - my choice. If others want to eat grain fed or like soda or don't care about GMO food - it's their body - their life - their choice.

When our entire global food supply relies upon a few strains of grains and a few species of livestock - and variety and diversity becomes limited - the truth is no one really knows how that is all going to pan out.

What a reading of history tell us is.... diversity mitigates risk. We even have a folksy saying. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Well, some folks don't like the notion of having all their eggs in one basket. And they don't think gov't or Monsanto gets their information from the burning bush.

I tend to agree - and you know... there is plenty of science out there to back up the premise that diversity is a GOOD thing.

When it comes to GMO crops - it's not as if some guy is trying to come up with the perfect rose. We're talking about the food supply for billions of people. Mistakes or bad policy has devastating consequences. We are right to question (even if our concerns prove to be unfounded - we should always question)

In any event - I simply want to retain the freedom to make choices about my life. And that includes what I put in my body. This does not mean I think fluoride causes cancer or there is a cabal of mad scientists intent upon using bees to turn us all into pod people.


It's not exactly a threat to national security - so I don't see why folks get so up in arms about it. I'm not convinced this GMO stuff is bad for us - but you know - I'd like the labeling on products to disclose what's really in it.

All people appear to be doing is questioning authority. Heck - the nation was founded by a bunch of kooks who questioned authority. We come by it honestly. :lol:

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:12 PM
No it wasn't. I wrote that I don't understand you - because, like some in my family, you fled a gov't that sought to impose its version of the "truth" on its citizens.

That was an observation. I find it curious.

You do ridicule and patronize those who merely wish to live less... conventional lives. You even used an example of turning your books over to an accountant. And you're right - there is a time when we say - I've reached the limit of my knowledge and it's time to turn things over to a professional.

But even when you do that - it does not stop you from continuing to learn. There is a difference between turning something over to a professional - and abdicating responsibility.

You appear to want people to blindly follow whatever the conventional wisdom is. Whether it's the beef council or Monsanto or ConAgra or whatever.

To be fair - the people in those enterprises know a great deal. A tremendous amount. But they don't know everything - and they don't hold a corner on the truth.

If a person wants to be a vegetarian or vegan - that's ok. It's their body - their life - their choice. If I want to eat grass fed beef - it's my body - my life - my choice. If others want to eat grain fed or like soda or don't care about GMO food - it's their body - their life - their choice.

When our entire global food supply relies upon a few strains of grains and a few species of livestock - and variety and diversity becomes limited - the truth is no one really knows how that is all going to pan out.

What a reading of history tell us is.... diversity mitigates risk. We even have a folksy saying. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Well, some folks don't like the notion of having all their eggs in one basket. And they don't think gov't or Monsanto gets their information from the burning bush.

I tend to agree - and you know... there is plenty of science out there to back up the premise that diversity is a GOOD thing.

When it comes to GMO crops - it's not as if some guy is trying to come up with the perfect rose. We're talking about the food supply for billions of people. Mistakes or bad policy has devastating consequences. We are right to question (even if our concerns prove to be unfounded - we should always question)

In any event - I simply want to retain the freedom to make choices about my life. And that includes what I put in my body. This does not mean I think fluoride causes cancer or there is a cabal of mad scientists intent upon using bees to turn us all into pod people.


It's not exactly a threat to national security - so I don't see why folks get so up in arms about it. I'm not convinced this GMO stuff is bad for us - but you know - I'd like the labeling on products to disclose what's really in it.

All people appear to be doing is questioning authority. Heck - the nation was founded by a bunch of kooks who questioned authority. We come by it honestly. :lol:

See one reason why GMO labeling is not a very good idea in post 63.
The regulating agencies were not skirting their duties, they were following the sensible way to handle regulation and for GMOs, it was not to enter in that nightmarish regulatory attempt.
The decision at that time, for what I read then, was banning them all, or let them go and with the science we have, they were safe enough for that, even less risk to them than to randomly bred plants is.
That doesn't mean there is no risk, but that was a calculated risk that, for what they knew then, was as safe as such can be considered safe.

They were doing their job, even if we may not like what they did.

As for all the other you bring up there, I guess that is why you jumped on me, you seem to still have some sore spots yet from previous conversations.
I won't respond to that.:no:

poltroon
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:23 PM
So aside from the whole degeneration of this thread into "I still have the same opinion I had before" etc., I think Don Huber's findings are pretty interesting and worthy of contemplation.

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/apr/6/don-hubers-cover-letter-euuk-commissions/


Although most corn hybrids have been genetically resistant to Goss’ wilt, preliminary research in 2010 demonstrated that the application of glyphosate herbicide, or the surfactant from glyphosate formulations, nullified this resistance and rendered them fully susceptible to this pathogen. This disease was commonly observed in many Midwestern U.S. fields planted to RR corn in 2009 and 2010, while adjacent non-GMO corn had very light to no infections in spite of the high inoculum present in no-till crop residues. The increased Goss’ wilt in 2010 was a major contributor to the estimated almost one billion bushels of corn ‘lost’ last year (based on USDA August estimated yields and actually harvested crop reported by USDA in January) in spite of generally good harvest conditions.

Increased severity of plant diseases after glyphosate is applied is well documented and, although rarely cited, the increased disease susceptibility is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate (Johal andRahe,1988, 1990; Johal and Huber, 2009; Schafer et al, 2009, 2010). The loss of disease resistance in Roundup Ready┬« sugar beets when glyphosate was applied prompted researchers at the USDA sugar beet laboratory to include a precautionary statement in their paper, e.g. “Precautions need to be taken when certain soil-borne diseases are present if weed management for sugar beet is to include post-emergence glyphosate treatments” (Larson et al, 2006).

All I have come across in reply to this has been a mirror of the person presenting it... either they say he's a crackpot or that he's a prophet. I personally see it as neither, but rather someone who has some interesting findings that need to be run down. Maybe they're nothing. Maybe they're coincidental. But there are plenty of ideas that seem easy enough to run down and investigate.

I've seen enough squirrely things in the GMO department to have some very definite concern. I do not think USDA nor the companies are doing a thorough job of testing or risk management, nor are they truly considering any worst case scenario. (It reminds me of the nuclear power plant plans that all say "Of course being more than 72 hours without external power is impossible and unthinkable" when what they really mean is "the problem of being more than 72 hours without power is really just too hard and too expensive to solve.")

One of the concerns I have is genetic drift in the GMO plants, both within the GMO plants and with nearby weeds. I would like to see nutritional/chemical analyses done regularly on the crops by outside researchers to see if in fact the amino acid makeup and other factors are staying as uniform as a traditionally bred crop.

If there's a link that goes point by point with the issues in Huber's letter run down, I'd be interested in that too.

Alagirl
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:34 PM
So aside from the whole degeneration of this thread into "I still have the same opinion I had before" etc., I think Don Huber's findings are pretty interesting and worthy of contemplation.

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/apr/6/don-hubers-cover-letter-euuk-commissions/



All I have come across in reply to this has been a mirror of the person presenting it... either they say he's a crackpot or that he's a prophet. I personally see it as neither, but rather someone who has some interesting findings that need to be run down. Maybe they're nothing. Maybe they're coincidental. But there are plenty of ideas that seem easy enough to run down and investigate.

I've seen enough squirrely things in the GMO department to have some very definite concern. I do not think USDA nor the companies are doing a thorough job of testing or risk management, nor are they truly considering any worst case scenario. (It reminds me of the nuclear power plant plans that all say "Of course being more than 72 hours without external power is impossible and unthinkable" when what they really mean is "the problem of being more than 72 hours without power is really just too hard and too expensive to solve.")

One of the concerns I have is genetic drift in the GMO plants, both within the GMO plants and with nearby weeds. I would like to see nutritional/chemical analyses done regularly on the crops by outside researchers to see if in fact the amino acid makeup and other factors are staying as uniform as a traditionally bred crop.

If there's a link that goes point by point with the issues in Huber's letter run down, I'd be interested in that too.


ah, yes very good points made.

I think we are kidding ourselves when we trust Monsanto (yes, I think they are the incarnation of the devil, but I live where their handywork was showing, cos they don't give a crap about people), or, for that matter the USDA or FDA. ah, yess, I know, my tinfoil hat is showing.

We won't know - for sure anyhow - how the GMO stuff will actually affect us long term.

I think either believing in every word 'official' channels (as in USDA/FDA and Monsanto) tell us or going overboard in the distrust will get us far.

We need to grow a head and use the tools we have at hand. And somewhere find the power to hold the powers-be accountable.

poltroon
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:34 PM
Corn syrup is not, in and of itself, a genetically modified organism. It has no DNA, no genes, it is merely a chemical compound. In fact, very much like the insulin mentioned above. If you did a spectrophotometric analysis (or whatever it is that's used to identify molecular structure these days) I doubt if you (or your body) could identify any difference between corn syrup today and corn syrup from 100 years ago.

For a while, one of the three processors for HFCS was using mercury in its synthesis, and there were detectible levels of mercury in the HFCS and the resulting soda. Industry said, "Oh, these levels are small" but were basing that on the idea of a 200 lb adult drinking not more than 8oz a day... which is not really how Americans consume soda. Kids drinking a couple of cans a day were getting levels high enough for real concern.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html

This is obviously a different issue than GMO, but it does show that the refining process is not resulting in a 100% pure sugar product. The source ingredients and reagents chosen can matter in the end product.

JSwan
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:39 PM
poltroon - that is more to the point I was trying to make.

poltroon
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:46 PM
That is one reason, for what I read, why GMO regulation would have been a nightmare.
You can't regulate so much you could not measure to say it was or not from GMO produce.
Much of the labeling today, where they use them, is just not that easy to determine what is what if someone is trying to test for those modifications.

Regulations provide for all GMO products to contain certain marker genes and the basic products do, but once processed, many of those are not there any more.

If you can tell me what foods come from organic ingredients, you can tell me what foods come from GMO ingredients.

The reason we don't is because it would add to the cost of GMO ingredients and lower the demand for them, which is not seen as a positive to the people who make those decisions. The American people were not even asked.

Alagirl
Aug. 23, 2011, 09:50 PM
If you can tell me what foods come from organic ingredients, you can tell me what foods come from GMO ingredients.

The reason we don't is because it would add to the cost of GMO ingredients and lower the demand for them, which is not seen as a positive to the people who make those decisions. The American people were not even asked.

yep...a many things they were not asked...

Nes
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:19 PM
Well... when money is free speech what voice does an individual have?



(Bluey, can I ask a personal favour that you stop hitting the quote button and posting entire posts again? It adds a lot of length to these threads. If you need to re-read something, I do sometimes, just delete it from your post before you press send)

mronthebit
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:24 PM
The smartest thing I've ever done, at least in terms of consistently improving my bottom line, was to get away from row cropping GMO corn/beans/wheat and grain feeding conventionally raised cows and hogs. Niche market agriculture pays our bills a lot more consistently and leaves a lot more money on the table than conventional farming ever did.

That said, I can also see considerable potential for well researched GMO's to improve the environment and, potentially, human health. When I was a kid we used to grow a lot of acres of cannery sweet corn. The way we controlled corn borer (a major sweet corn pest) at the time was by spraying the corn several times with powerful insecticides. If I had to choose between spraying insecticide or growing/eating GMO (Bt) sweet corn, I'd choose Bt every time. Same goes for commercially grown potatoes.

Guilherme
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:30 PM
Well... when money is free speech what voice does an individual have?

The same voice they've always had.

The Constitution guarantees Free Speech. It does not guarantee that each voice speak with equal volume.

Put another way, you've no right not to be outshouted.

G.

Bluey
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:41 PM
The same voice they've always had.

The Constitution guarantees Free Speech. It does not guarantee that each voice speak with equal volume.

Put another way, you've no right not to be outshouted.

G.

Right.

Conventional agriculture has been outshouted now for long time by everyone else with their own agendas, while we keep feeding all quietly.
If we dare speak up, we are shouted down even more fiercely, because we can't do anything right, see all you do wrong.:confused:

Someone published an article again bashing and here was the response from one producer:

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20110822/OPINION04/108220307

millerra
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:07 PM
We won't know - for sure anyhow - how the GMO stuff will actually affect us long term.



This is exactly the problem because how does one design the experiment?

Many things once considered safe were later found to have ill effects due to long term low level exposure or environmental contamination - DDT is one of them. Others include benzene (used to be a common organic solvent), asbestos, PCBs, and others. So why do "scientists not know" - because it's very hard or impossible to design an experiment to elucidate the effects of long term low level exposure. Acute toxicity is much easier to get some type of handle on (e.g. does the rat die from exposure of x amount?)

Now, so far as GMO's - I do think the consumer has some power here. Buy organic, buy natural foods, buy whole foods etc.

OTOH -GMO's as a general rule don't really bother me at all w/r/t to food safety. Gene transfer and the resistant weeds are more worrisome, IMHO as well as the loss of genetic diversity.

deltawave
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:09 PM
Kids drinking a couple of cans a day were getting levels high enough for real concern.

Kids drinking a couple of cans of sugary soda per day are at monstrous risk of all manner of dreadful health problems, misery, and early death, not ONE of which is due to trace amounts of mercury. :no:

We have to address what is truly risky and what is only a little risky. Letting a kid drink 600 calories worth of soda a day is criminal. Why aren't people up in arms about the advertising of Coke and Pepsi and sweet, pretty, musical charming commercials for Happy Meals? :dead:

With no market for ghastly sweet beverages there would be no market for corn syrup requiring its production in quantities only achievable through manipulation of the plant genome.

Guilherme
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:25 PM
I've got a bottle of high-fructose corn syrup on my pantry shelf right now. It's call Karo Syrup and comes in light and dark types. We use it occasionally in baking. It also goes quite well on pancakes, waffles, etc. I prefer maple syrup (the real stuff, not that rubbish from Log Cabin or Mrs. Butterworth). But I've been eating the Karo from the time since I was in a high chair. I've managed to survive 65+ years. It must not be so bad. ;)

The truth is it has a very sweet, pleasing taste. That's why it's used. It's no more addictive than honey or white sugar or brown sugar or lemon grass or any other sweetener.

I fully concur that it's lunacy to drink as much sweet soda as some kids drink. The responsibility for that lies with Mommy and Daddy, not CocaCola.

G.

jetsmom
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:35 PM
I've got a bottle of high-fructose corn syrup on my pantry shelf right now. It's call Karo Syrup and comes in light and dark types. We use it occasionally in baking. It also goes quite well on pancakes, waffles, etc. I prefer maple syrup (the real stuff, not that rubbish from Log Cabin or Mrs. Butterworth). But I've been eating the Karo from the time since I was in a high chair. I've managed to survive 65+ years. It must not be so bad. ;)

The truth is it has a very sweet, pleasing taste. That's why it's used. It's no more addictive than honey or white sugar or brown sugar or lemon grass or any other sweetener.

I fully concur that it's lunacy to drink as much sweet soda as some kids drink. The responsibility for that lies with Mommy and Daddy, not CocaCola.

G.

Ahhh...nothing beats real maple syrup!!!!

poltroon
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:47 PM
Kids drinking a couple of cans of sugary soda per day are at monstrous risk of all manner of dreadful health problems, misery, and early death, not ONE of which is due to trace amounts of mercury. :no:

We have to address what is truly risky and what is only a little risky. Letting a kid drink 600 calories worth of soda a day is criminal. Why aren't people up in arms about the advertising of Coke and Pepsi and sweet, pretty, musical charming commercials for Happy Meals? :dead:

With no market for ghastly sweet beverages there would be no market for corn syrup requiring its production in quantities only achievable through manipulation of the plant genome.

Deltawave, I am completely with you on the soda, but it's still not okay to add mercury... or lead paint.. to it. People have the right to assume that regardless of its other risks, HFCS does not contain dangerous levels of heavy metals.

Even most whole wheat bread has HFCS.

Original paper is here: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069x-8-2.pdf


With the reported average daily consumption of 49.8 g HFCS per person, however, and our finding of mercury in the range of 0.00 to 0.570 μg mercury/g HFCS, we can estimate that the potential average daily total mercury exposure from HFCS could range from zero to 28.4 μg mercury.


In the US, the current action level of 1 μg methylmercury/g fish or seafood was set in 1977 during court proceedings of the United States of American v. Anderson Seafoods, Inc. [28].

The typical serving size of fish would be 4 ounces - so that's a 4μg total action level per serving.

To be honest, it makes me wonder if some of the problems we've been attributing to the sugar in HFCS perhaps should have been attributed to mercury accumulation.

poltroon
Aug. 23, 2011, 11:55 PM
In my county, it's illegal to grow GMO crops... not that anyone wanted to. Monsanto fought the initiative and outspent the sponsors 10 to 1 and lost.

The feed store assures us that their supplier is not using the GMO alfalfa and has no plans to.

So, if this concerns you, talk to your feed stores and vote with your feet when you can.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 12:55 AM
In my county, it's illegal to grow GMO crops... not that anyone wanted to. Monsanto fought the initiative and outspent the sponsors 10 to 1 and lost.

The feed store assures us that their supplier is not using the GMO alfalfa and has no plans to.

So, if this concerns you, talk to your feed stores and vote with your feet when you can.

Of course not interested in GMO crops, too busy growing pot.:p

---"The county is noted for its distinctive Pacific Ocean coastline, Redwood forests, wine production, microbrews, and liberal views on cannabis. It is estimated that roughly two-thirds of the economy is based on the cultivation of marijuana."---

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 01:43 AM
Of course not interested in GMO crops, too busy growing pot.:p

---"The county is noted for its distinctive Pacific Ocean coastline, Redwood forests, wine production, microbrews, and liberal views on cannabis. It is estimated that roughly two-thirds of the economy is based on the cultivation of marijuana."---

Totally true. Also winegrapes, and to a lesser extent tree crops like pears and apples, and grass fed beef and sheep. Our microclimate/terrain isn't right for the large commodity crops that have GM varieties. The pot is usually up in the hills, land you wouldn't use for crops (aside of course from woodland and forest) anyway.

The funny thing about the pot is that the biggest problems are caused not by its intoxicants but by agriculture acting outside the law. "Indoor gardening" is the most common cause of fires, because people use extension cords and don't have their wiring to code. Illegal water diversions are a problem. Diesel spills, from generators, and illegal and overuse of herbicides and pesticides create environmental problems. But my favorite is the offense of moving plants without a nursery license. It makes you laugh, but it created a problem with novice or uncaring growers introducing certain pests by moving plants and soil around inappropriately. We don't have those problems with the grape growers.

Back on topic, my particular corner of the county produces very nice orchardgrass hay, which is of course ideal for me. Very few people grow alfalfa locally, which I've assumed is because the grass hay is easier to grow here and fetches a higher price anyway.

Equilibrium
Aug. 24, 2011, 03:00 AM
Not trying to start arguments but I actually find it very strange it is not labled back home. I know everyone thinks the EU is so heavily regulated and therefore our choices are taken away, but I've never seen that. Actually it seems as though because of the regulations we can actually make better decisions for our well being if we so choose.

What about grapes? Aren't they GM? They went from seeds to no seeds pretty quick. Those are GM correct? That just crossed my mind as I am a grape addict at the moment.

Terri

carolprudm
Aug. 24, 2011, 07:37 AM
What about grapes? Aren't they GM? They went from seeds to no seeds pretty quick. Those are GM correct? That just crossed my mind as I am a grape addict at the moment.

Terri
Depends on what you consider GM.

Thompson Sweet Seedless grapes were introduced in '76....make that 1876

Daydream Believer
Aug. 24, 2011, 08:50 AM
Depends on what you consider GM.

Thompson Sweet Seedless grapes were introduced in '76....make that 1876

You simply cannot compare selective breeding used to produce hybrid grapes with GMOs where totally unrelated genes from unrelated species of plants and animals are inserted at the DNA strand level in a lab.

carolprudm
Aug. 24, 2011, 09:32 AM
You simply cannot compare selective breeding used to produce hybrid grapes with GMOs where totally unrelated genes from unrelated species of plants and animals are inserted at the DNA strand level in a lab.
That is the reason I posted "depends on what you consider..."

Selective breeding and hybridization are genetic modifications albeit on a much simpler level than recombinant DNA.

Through selective breeding William Thompson produced a seedless grape however you could easily argue that it was to the detriment of that particular strain of grape since without seeds it is unable to reproduce sexually though presumably it does produce pollen.

People certainly need to be cautions about any new technology but I don't think GMO organisms should automatically be banned as Greenpeace demands. No, I don't think the world needs roundup ready anything but things like insulin and golden rice, and even corn that resists insects are certainly worth keeping and monitoring. Truthfully given the choice of wormy corn, corn with synthetic pesticide residue and BT corn, I'll take the BT thank you very much

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 09:33 AM
You simply cannot compare selective breeding used to produce hybrid grapes with GMOs where totally unrelated genes from unrelated species of plants and animals are inserted at the DNA strand level in a lab.

Right, just as harnessing electricity, or blowing distilled petroleum in engines, or the use of radiation, from x rays, so many other techniques, to nuclear plants.:eek:

So, this is new technology we have developed and is not necessarily "bad" just because it is new.;)

Just think all the scary technology that goes into making the chips that run our computers.:p

Who remembers the first microwave ovens?
I remember turning it on for the first time and running out of the kitchen and peeking safely at it from the door jam, to see if it would explode, not quite sure what would happen.:rolleyes:

deltawave
Aug. 24, 2011, 09:37 AM
Poltroon, that was a pilot study and the topic is very worthy of further research, but a random sample of three products is not enough for anyone to draw conclusions. The authors of this article clearly emphasize this.

An area of concern AND an area that is probably very, very readily corrected if the findings are confirmed. I would still consider the corn syrup an innocent bystander.

wendy
Aug. 24, 2011, 11:38 AM
You simply cannot compare selective breeding used to produce hybrid grapes with GMOs where totally unrelated genes from unrelated species of plants and animals are inserted at the DNA strand level in a lab.
why can't you? I'm really baffled here. Selective breeding changes the genome a lot more than inserting a single gene. Genes are genes regardless of species of origin.
Viruses are known to naturally carry genes from one species to another and insert them. Species are known to cross-pollinate and hybridize.

Daydream Believer
Aug. 24, 2011, 12:10 PM
why can't you? I'm really baffled here. Selective breeding changes the genome a lot more than inserting a single gene. Genes are genes regardless of species of origin.
Viruses are known to naturally carry genes from one species to another and insert them. Species are known to cross-pollinate and hybridize.

I'm baffled too. How can you equate inserting a fish or bacteria (BT) gene into a plant as the same thing as crossing two varieties of grapes?

Genetic engineering like that could never happen in nature. Last I heard fish and plants do not breed each other.

Alagirl
Aug. 24, 2011, 12:25 PM
why can't you? I'm really baffled here. Selective breeding changes the genome a lot more than inserting a single gene. Genes are genes regardless of species of origin.
Viruses are known to naturally carry genes from one species to another and insert them. Species are known to cross-pollinate and hybridize.

Well, I think we run into a problem when you combine genes that would never cross paths in a natural setting.
I think we do not understand all of the finer points of genetics well enough just yet. Heck, it's been only a relative few years since we learned that secondary content in foods, like color, can have a great impact on how the food is digested and works in the body. I am strictly speaking of unprepared natural foods, like peppers for instance, you know, red vs yellow vs purple vs green.

gene manipulation can accomplish crosses well before a natural selection can, or with less 'waste'. But who is to say that the 'waste' is not better than the goal...

Another big problem is giving a company lie Monsanto carde blanche, given their track record of being the equivalent of a sociopath. While they might have the knowhow and technology, they lack the ethics and humility.
Great that you can kill the weeds with an application of Roundup while your crops are growing, but what are the long term effects? We have already suffered in past eras the effects of 'smart' agriculture when a single disease wipes out entire crops because only one thing is planted. We have seen species disappear from our environment because we destroyed their habitat for the sake of bigger machines. Add erosion and ground water pollution to the mix....

Agriculture is difficult to navigate at time, I think. You have to 'modernize' to keep cost down because otherwise you lose the farm, but you have to be mindful not to saw on the branch you sit on.

While I generally agree with Bluey on things farming (it is after all true that we have never before been able to feed this many people of this little land) in the matter of gene manipulation I prefer to err on the side of caution. And some of the big players I's prefer to see gone, better yesterday then today.

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 01:23 PM
...Someone published an article again bashing and here was the response from one producer:

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20110822/OPINION04/108220307

SURPRISE! SURPRISE!!

Written by the same people who gave the "feedlot tour" to the Vegetarian who doesn't know if he's a Vegan or not...

I call B.S. and not the sustainable grass raised kind!

carolprudm
Aug. 24, 2011, 01:26 PM
How do you feel about the use of GMO's to pruduce insulin? Would you rather it be extracted from butchered pigs and cows?

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 01:27 PM
Erosion is a very interesting case, because it is very simple avoided by resting the land, rotating crops, and not plowing under to leave bare soil.

This is something farmers did a hundred years ago, mostly because of lack of technology/man-power to do anything different, that 'modern thinking' tried to pretty up and has caused terrible problems.

It's something that many "modern" big-ag farmers still don't do, instead they're heaping on expensive fertilizers to get one more year out of dead soil.

Alagirl
Aug. 24, 2011, 01:38 PM
How do you feel about the use of GMO's to pruduce insulin? Would you rather it be extracted from butchered pigs and cows?

(you did not just ask that....)


I think there is this element of usage when the animal is already being killed.
What do you use to produce the insulin with? Put it in the person? If he is ok with that, no prob. I think medical uses are much closer regulated than agricultural ones. And there is the big problem I am seeing.
Monsanto is not risking anything. Put a bad batch of medicine out and every ambulance chaser in the country will be out for a blood letting.

It's not so much that GMO is bad vs natural breeding is good, it's the lack of research behind it (and the apparent stone walling from the agencies in charge of our protection in this matter).

You can't approach the matter with an all out 'yep it's good' or 'no it's the devil' But with the current situation I'd rather have the option to avoid it.

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 01:43 PM
I don't believe there are any companies like Monsanto dealing with that level of GMO. I know the University of Guelph on the other hand... As long as it stays in the lab, I'm willing to watch from afar.

We will never be eating an animal that is raised for medical purposes. Same as a pig valve for a human heart does not come from a commercially raised swine you'll be buying pork chops of at the local grocery store.

No one is that stupid.

All that work may be for not with the way things are going growing human tissue from stem cells (for the love of COTH please do no start a stem cell debate...), so we won't need piggies with human immune systems.


Raising vaccines in goat milk, is also a very interesting proposition, but it still leads to all sorts of cross-species disease issues.

deltawave
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:01 PM
I think there is this element of usage when the animal is already being killed.
What do you use to produce the insulin with? Put it in the person? If he is ok with that, no prob.

Boy, if we could find a way to get a human to manufacture his/her own insulin by inserting genes, we'd have no type I diabetes. :)

Insulin is made by genetically engineered bacteria, with genes transplanted into them to turn them into little insulin factories. GMOs.

The problem with beef and pork insulin is not the poor cow or pig being slaughtered. It is the fact that this kind of insulin is NOT HUMAN and causes all kinds of sensitization problems with huge potential interactions with other beef- and pork-derived medications.

TheresanAppfurthat
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:03 PM
Gee can you pick out of the lineup who owns stock in Monsanto??

There are many excellent and science-based (confirmed science, double blind studies over long periods of time, etc. etc. etc.) reasons why GMO crops are banned in certain countries.

I have an agenda, you bet, an agenda for both myself and my critters.

It's called STAYING AWAY from the Kool-Aid.

Alagirl
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:13 PM
Gee can you pick out of the lineup who owns stock in Monsanto??

There are many excellent and science-based (confirmed science, double blind studies over long periods of time, etc. etc. etc.) reasons why GMO crops are banned in certain countries.

I have an agenda, you bet, an agenda for both myself and my critters.

It's called STAYING AWAY from the Kool-Aid.


I don't even think it's that cut and dry.
It's a politicum as well. Things don't get banned because they are bad - most of the time - but because the people fear they could be.
You know, the ones that vote.
And considering that we generally gt knowledge by the dropper...you know how that goes.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:14 PM
Gee can you pick out of the lineup who owns stock in Monsanto??

There are many excellent and science-based (confirmed science, double blind studies over long periods of time, etc. etc. etc.) reasons why GMO crops are banned in certain countries.

I have an agenda, you bet, an agenda for both myself and my critters.

It's called STAYING AWAY from the Kool-Aid.

I don't think you have been listening, at all.:no:

And no, I don't have stocks of any kind, not on any company, never have owned not one stock of anything, for your information.
I do have a basic education that includes it's share of science, not enough to be a scientist, but enough to understand what is behind much of the science out there and regulations posed on that science and common sense enough to know when it makes sense to do what they do and when not.

All you seem to know is what the media tells you, that is "be scared, the sky is falling, we are poisoning everyone!".

Well, no, the advantages of GMOs of all kinds, up to now, have been way more than any imagined or maybe possible future disadvantage.

My contention, let science do their thing, let regulators do theirs and yes, some of all that will be influenced by other, like economics, politics, short cuts, even mistakes of all kinds and lets hope that will be few.

I still say, you can't tell where this is going, but up to now, we are ahead for having GMOs, warts and all.

Just my opinion with what I know, subject to change with more information as it presents itself, but none has yet to say we are wrong, ban GMOs on principle.

As I said, that is like banning any work on electricity or radiation because it could and did kill people when they first started working with them.

TheresanAppfurthat
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:34 PM
Bluey? Really?? "All you seem to know is what the media tells you, that is "be scared, the sky is falling, we are poisoning everyone!".

Please. Spare me. That wasn't worthy of a "schoolmaster."

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:39 PM
Bluey? Really?? "All you seem to know is what the media tells you, that is "be scared, the sky is falling, we are poisoning everyone!".

Please. Spare me. That wasn't worthy of a "schoolmaster."

Guess that you can state your opinion, no matter how out of it, like "owning stocks is why some don't want to ban GMOs" and if others differ, then they are not worthy?;)

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:45 PM
From what I can tell, it's you who isn't listening. You continue to believe that anyone questioning govt or a lobby is stupid, uneducated, or is getting their information from the media.

Or, that if a person expresses a concern, the person is in the Dark Ages.

Or, the community who votes against GMO crops is too busy planting pot, obviously just a bunch of hippies. That was a direct slam to that poster. Baiting.

Patronizing, condescending, and after so many of these threads... No more doubt that it is intentional.

Except for extremely partisan/ideological groups like Greenpeace, few demand a ban on GMO crops.

There is plenty to be concerned about. And that concern is expressed by people within agriculture too. Hedge funds buying up cropland. Monoculture crops. Lack of diversity. Patent issues with seeds. The list goes on.

Those people are not hippies or people afraid of electricity. Their concerns are legitimate. It's reasonable to be concerned about the unintended consequences of mucking about with the food supply. it's reasonable to be
concerned about what is in our food and water. It's reasonable to want to know what is in the products we buy.

You think that's stupid? To want to control the amount of sugar in our diets? To avoid foods we believe are bad for us? Or to raise our own food, because we prefer the taste of heirloom varieties and not the tasteless food in the store? I don't care that the tasteless food feeds the world. That's not the point. The point is, some folks just don't want to eat it. And they shouldn't be forced to, or to be ridiculed for making different choices.

Good grief. Stop assuming we are all children who must be herded and parented. And instead of chastising us for questioning, you might want to do a little research. Because frankly, it isnt us who is behind the times.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:49 PM
From what I can tell, it's you who isn't listening. You continue to believe that anyone questioning govt or a lobby is stupid, uneducated, or is getting their information from the media.

Or, that if a person expresses a concern, the person is in the Dark Ages.

Or, the community who votes against GMO crops is too busy planting pot, obviously just a bunch of hippies. That was a direct slam to that poster. Baiting.

Patronizing, condescending, and after so many of these threads... No more doubt that it is intentional.

Except for extremely partisan/ideological groups like Greenpeace, few demand a ban on GMO crops.

There is plenty to be concerned about. And that concern is expressed by people within agriculture too. Hedge funds buying up cropland. Monoculture crops. Lack of diversity. Patent issues with seeds. The list goes on.

Those people are not hippies or people afraid of electricity. Their concerns are legitimate. It's reasonable to be concerned about the unintended consequences of mucking about with the food supply. it's reasonable to be concerned about what is in our food and water. It's reasonable to want to know what is in the products we buy.

You think that's stupid? To want to control the amount of sugar in our diets? To avoid foods we believe are bad for us? Or to raise our own food, because we prefer the taste of heirloom varieties and not the tasteless food in the store? I don't care that the tasteless food feeds the world. That's not the point. The point is, some folks just don't want to eat it. And they shouldn't be forced to, or to be ridiculed for making different choices.

Good grief. Stop assuming we are all children who must be herded and parented.

More personal attacks.:(
You don't really want me to respond to that in kind, do you, because I won't.
You keep that up if you so choose, I will stick to the science behind this.

GMOs are a new science path and very interesting and already has given us more than many seem to appreciate, at the same time yes, there are concerns.
Those are taken into consideration and the debate is ongoing on many fronts.:)

carolprudm
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:51 PM
Boy, if we could find a way to get a human to manufacture his/her own insulin by inserting genes, we'd have no type I diabetes. :)

Insulin is made by genetically engineered bacteria, with genes transplanted into them to turn them into little insulin factories. GMOs.

The problem with beef and pork insulin is not the poor cow or pig being slaughtered. It is the fact that this kind of insulin is NOT HUMAN and causes all kinds of sensitization problems with huge potential interactions with other beef- and pork-derived medications.

LOL, don't confuse the issue with facts.

carolprudm
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:55 PM
From what I can tell, it's you who isn't listening. You continue to believe that anyone questioning govt or a lobby is stupid, uneducated, or is getting their information from the media.

Or, that if a person expresses a concern, the person is in the Dark Ages.

Or, the community who votes against GMO crops is too busy planting pot, obviously just a bunch of hippies. That was a direct slam to that poster. Baiting.

Patronizing, condescending, and after so many of these threads... No more doubt that it is intentional.

Except for extremely partisan/ideological groups like Greenpeace, few demand a ban on GMO crops.

There is plenty to be concerned about. And that concern is expressed by people within agriculture too. Hedge funds buying up cropland. Monoculture crops. Lack of diversity. Patent issues with seeds. The list goes on.

Those people are not hippies or people afraid of electricity. Their concerns are legitimate. It's reasonable to be concerned about the unintended consequences of mucking about with the food supply. it's reasonable to be
concerned about what is in our food and water. It's reasonable to want to know what is in the products we buy.

You think that's stupid? To want to control the amount of sugar in our diets? To avoid foods we believe are bad for us? Or to raise our own food, because we prefer the taste of heirloom varieties and not the tasteless food in the store? I don't care that the tasteless food feeds the world. That's not the point. The point is, some folks just don't want to eat it. And they shouldn't be forced to, or to be ridiculed for making different choices.

Good grief. Stop assuming we are all children who must be herded and parented. And instead of chastising us for questioning, you might want to do a little research. Because frankly, it isnt us who is behind the times.
Do you like bananas? Not GMO but quite possibly the least bio diverse crop on earth

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 02:57 PM
No personal attack was implied. Nor intended. You infer whatever you want.

As far as science.... I'd point out that the only link you offered was an editorial.

So again, you assume that if a person questions anything, it is because we are not smart enough to be grateful for what we have.

Which is more evidence that you are simply not understanding what you read on these threads.

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 03:00 PM
Do you like bananas? Not GMO but quite possibly the least bio diverse crop on earth

True.

What's your point.

That because bananas are not diverse it is permissible to insert fish genes in tomatoes?

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 03:12 PM
I will again try to explain how I feel about how some bash anything that has to do with evil science, here GMOs.

Imagine that you are a farrier and several groups with agendas and the media, looking for one more target, decide farriers are the next in line now.
Why? Of course, just look at farriers, hacking away at poor horse's hooves until they bleed, crippling them and then expecting them to walk around on the stubs or worse, the horror, do you see what they are doing?
NAILING big heavy metal pieces of iron to the bottom of poor horse's feet!:eek:

How barbaric! People should know better now, horse's self trim their feet, we don't need farriers abusing them.

Then go ahead and google farriers and find the first 100 pages of web sites against farriers with all kinds of videos and claims and studies of how terrible is all they do to poor horses, watch horses suffering.

Then the media is given all those stories, they make documentaries, mostly of interviews with those that are running the anti farrier show, the ones putting out the websites, asking for donations to stop farriers.

Horse owners and farriers are non-plussed, wonder what all that is all about, they know they are doing good by taking care properly of their horse's feet, but no one else believes them, if they speak up, they are yelled down and called names and no one believes them because they are, guess what, those horrible farriers.

That is what is happening right now to the carriage drivers in NYC, to animal agriculture, see the response to a producer's link I got right here, he knows he is doing way above for his cattle, but no one believes him, because he is, yes, a terrible cattle abuser no one can believe, just by raising cattle, of course!

That is what I see here, many against GMOs that really don't understand what they are, that is much more than some GMO alfalfa, that is a very complicated science, that is being just now really getting started and we don't know where it may go, that all are already doing the best with, although of course not perfect and yes, not everyone always on the level, there are many different directions this new science is being pulled.

BUT, those using this science are, like the farriers in my imaginary story, like the very real NYC carriage drivers, automatically been made the bad guys and condemned without a trial, just because they dare use the science they are working with, in as safe manner as they can, but that all doesn't matter, the agendas of many are to find something to bash and to make news of and it is not good news unless there is controversy and one-upmanship.

I think that all is sad and in a way, hopefully not, we will end up blowing ourselves up after all, not because we misuse some technology, but because we seem to keep wanting to find fault so much more than we ever think about what we have that is good and how can we make it better.

When the majority of humans seem intent on being an eternal, grumpy critic of all anyone that IS out there doing and trying their best, when nothing is good enough, those that are still trying do get discouraged.
Hard to always having to be swimming upstream, knowing we have to trim horses and sometimes shoe them, we keep doing it, even if the rest of the mostly clueless world keeps bashing us for it.:confused:

That is what I see in these threads, some just can't find anything good in any thing, love to bash, even when explained it is not as they are assuming, there are more sides to the story.

deltawave
Aug. 24, 2011, 03:26 PM
It's a politicum as well. Things don't get banned because they are bad - most of the time - but because the people fear they could be.
You know, the ones that vote.


Yes, I think this is very much the case. Very seldom is public policy driven by cold, hard, dispassionate science. Usually it is driven by the party in power, who are driven by the demands of their constituents.


That because bananas are not diverse it is permissible to insert fish genes in tomatoes?

Since when do humans ask PERMISSION to do anything? :) Permissible isn't the right word. Perhaps "safe", "worthwhile", "more good than bad", or "reasonable" are better words?

We insert human genes in bacteria to serve our needs. Lots of people would be in pretty rotten shape if it weren't for genetic engineering and recombinant technology.

(Trying to be the one who's looking at BOTH SIDES) :)

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 03:34 PM
Yes, I think this is very much the case. Very seldom is public policy driven by cold, hard, dispassionate science. Usually it is driven by the party in power, who are driven by the demands of their constituents.



Since when do humans ask PERMISSION to do anything? :) Permissible isn't the right word. Perhaps "safe", "worthwhile", "more good than bad", or "reasonable" are better words?

We insert human genes in bacteria to serve our needs. Lots of people would be in pretty rotten shape if it weren't for genetic engineering and recombinant technology.

(Trying to be the one who's looking at BOTH SIDES) :)



The question then is, what kind of information are those that vote getting and who are they listening to?:eek:

Sad, when you read some of what is posted here.:(

Xanthoria
Aug. 24, 2011, 03:47 PM
While I'd naturally side with the anti-GMO set, my dad is a crop scientist involved in breeding disease-resistant crops for decades now. No - not commercially. In a university. Not sponsored by Monsanto. In Europe.

He has absolutely no problem with GMO much to my surprise.

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 03:55 PM
As am I, deltawave. I see no need to ban anything. And I'm not one who jumps onto bandwagons wearing my tinfoil hat.

But I'm also not ignorant. And like most people I've seen govts, regulatory agencies and companies make plenty of mistakes.

I'd prefer to have more information rather than less. I'd prefer to have more choice and control, rather than less. And I'm astonished that anyone would think the govt, a regulatory agency or a corporation has the corner on the truth. If they did, there would be no thalidomide babies or Love Canal. No Dalkon Shield victims. No Johnsongrass eradication programs. No kudzu. no Russian Olive.

The problem with the mass consolidation of agriculture, and the decline in crop diversity means that a mistake will have tremendous repercussions. We see it already with food recalls. There are people in the scientific community who see problems with large scale GMO crops. People who think a few companies holding the patents for pretty much all global food production is really bad pubic policy. Maybe some of these people are wrong. Maybe they aren't. Either way, I'm not a lemming and I sure as heck don't drink kool aid. Even if it's GMO free.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 03:58 PM
While I'd naturally side with the anti-GMO set, my dad is a crop scientist involved in breeding disease-resistant crops for decades now. No - not commercially. In a university. Not sponsored by Monsanto. In Europe.

He has absolutely no problem with GMO much to my surprise.

My question is, have you studied your "natural tendency to side with the anti-GMO set"?

That is what my example with the farrier was, we are being fed information and positions on topics continuously and respond to any issues with a "tainted" background of preconceived ideas.
It is hard to make ourselves THINK past them.

GMOs are not the saviors of the world, they are not the evil that will do us in, they are what they are, one more technology that we are just learning to use, will make mistakes with, has already given us much good and is worth continuing to see where it takes us, carefully, of course.

BUT, the majority are primed to knee-jerk respond with distrust and rejection to anything as the GMOs represent, as you did and so many here do, before they even learn enough about it to be able to absorb new information without bias, IF they can find that at all.

Information can be a two edged sword, if we are not aware of all that is behind it, changing it, slanting it.

deltawave
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:05 PM
The question then is, what kind of information are those that vote getting and who are they listening to?

Well, I'm of the opinion that people choose who to vote for based on one issue and one issue alone. And it isn't GMOs. :)


GMOs are not the saviors of the world, they are not the evil that will do us in, they are what they are, one more technology that we are just learning to use, will make mistakes with, has already given us much good and is worth continuing to see where it takes us, carefully, of course.

:yes: Sprinkle in a handful of "probablies, maybes, and possiblies" and you are 100% correct. Probably. :D

Xanthoria
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:07 PM
My question is, have you studied your "natural tendency to side with the anti-GMO set"?

No. I'm an analytical person. If something like "GMO=doom" comes up, I look into it. My "natural tendency" comment was partly facetious.

In this case I have a world renowned, published, peer reviewed, you name it crop scientist available for immediate comment. Yay for me.

grayarabpony
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:09 PM
Yes, I think this is very much the case. Very seldom is public policy driven by cold, hard, dispassionate science. Usually it is driven by the party in power, who are driven by the demands of their constituents.


You're leaving out the [monetary] clout welded by corporations, which is a lot of the concern here. Monsanto doesn't represent the power of the people.

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:09 PM
why can't you? I'm really baffled here. Selective breeding changes the genome a lot more than inserting a single gene. Genes are genes regardless of species of origin.
Viruses are known to naturally carry genes from one species to another and insert them. Species are known to cross-pollinate and hybridize.


A couple of the questions are this:

1. When DNA from unrelated sources is spliced in, does it stay where you put it as well as it would from ordinary recombination? There is some evidence that in some cases it does not. So then you want to know what the odds are of it staying there, and what would happen if it doesn't.

2. We don't understand DNA all that well yet. It was gospel for a while that 90-odd percent of our DNA was 'junk' that didn't code anything. Now we know that was ridiculous (as probably everyone should have from the get go). We think we know that a section of DNA only codes for one particular protein or enzyme... but what other things might be going on along with it? We're not quite sure.

3. The insertions of DNA aren't quite as surgical and precise (last time I looked; I'm not a researcher in this area) as you might expect given the press releases. There is the possibility, for example, that if you inserted a gene from peanuts into wheat, that you would trigger people with peanut allergies. (That's a reason that at the moment they would not do this.)

4. When you move DNA from disparate species, you inadvertently will likely move it into related species and populations. Thus, we see the Roundup Ready ™ gene now in some distinctly non-Monsanto-approved weeds. And what happens to it there? Does it stay intact or does it migrate around in interesting ways as in (1) above? And which is more of a problem? ;)

Working with hybrids and the like has none of these issues.

GM specifically applies to plants and animals with DNA manipulated on a gene by gene level in a genetic engineering lab, not hybrids or selectively bred organisms. And so no, there are no GMO grape varieties in production.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:12 PM
No. I'm an analytical person. If something like "GMO=doom" comes up, I look into it. My "natural tendency" comment was partly facetious.

In this case I have a world renowned, published, peer reviewed, you name it crop scientist available for immediate comment. Yay for me.

I know, but thanks for helping me make my point, if taken by the hairs to do so.;)

That is neat, to have someone like that for immediate feedback on any questions.
I too know a few nice folks like that, sure comes in handy.:yes:

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:13 PM
So to be clear, the fundamental reason our community voted to ban GMO crops - as much as I think we all enjoyed sticking our thumb in Monsanto's eye - is that a huge percentage of agriculture in this area is certified organic. GMO cannot be certified organic, and it is known to drift across property lines. People here were acting to protect their market niche of organic crops.

It's one reason keeping GMO alfalfa out of the county is important to people - because the people who DO grow alfalfa here are growing certified organic alfalfa.

carolprudm
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:15 PM
True.

What's your point.

That because bananas are not diverse it is permissible to insert fish genes in tomatoes?
No, my point is that GMO and biodiversity are separate issues as are GMO and seedless grapes (or watermellons) unless you want to broaden the definition of genetic engineering or modification to include artificial hybridization

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:32 PM
I also think there is real reason to be cautious about GMOs not because I truly believe they are All Evil and Doom but because we don't really know what we're doing and because the ability to undo it is pretty much zero.

There's a philosophy called the precautionary principle, which is that if you don't understand the plausible risks, you probably shouldn't do it. There is a responsibility to anticipate risk and to either establish that the risk is not present or to prepare to mitigate it. That's where I'm coming from here.

The Liberty Link rice is a perfect example. When it escaped, there was literally no additional study done on it establishing its benign nature. Why not? Because there was no practical way to remove it from the southeast rice crops. None. What if it had been harmful? I suppose they would have had to burn every single field that had any contamination, stop planting rice for a few years and aggressively weed, and do years of expensive and extensive monitoring and testing.

As it was, farmers in the southeast had huge financial losses because their crop was no longer acceptable to Asian markets.

The potential for harm is enormous if the wrong gene gets out there and there's no one really thinking much about it in the US nor taking responsibility for preventing that outcome. We're all relying on the good citizenship and prescience and careful work of the people of Monsanto and Bayer and the like. I find that unsatisfying.

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:35 PM
No, I don't. But I have grave concerns about the direction of agriculture and global food production. And one concern is GMO crops and the patents.

I am not concerned that tomatoes are going to jump off my plate and demand equal rights. I am concerned that there is a need for seed banks. I'm concerned that hedge funds are buying up cropland. I'm concerned that we now rely on a few strains of grain and livestock for all our food. And I'm concerned that the people in charge don't have the brains God gave a paper bag. And I remain unconvinced that lobbysists have a corner on the truth.

What I resent is the assertion that it is best to shut up and obey. It smacks of the " there are starving children in China who would be glad to have that " lecture I got from my parents when I was 6 years old. Im tired of reading that from some posters. Unquestioning obedience is not in my character, but healthy skepticism is.

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:37 PM
Poltroon, well written.

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:39 PM
So I am trained as a scientist and I work as an engineer. I am not anti-science at all. I'm not anti-genetic engineering.

I do have concerns with people whose only motivation is the next quarter's profits deciding what GMO crops to develop and deploy into the world's ecosystems. Especially because if they do make a mess, I suspect they won't be around (or able) to clean it up.

I have concerns with my neighbor's GMO plants establishing themselves on my property, especially given how Monsanto has enforced their intellectual property rights (the bad press etc has been brought upon themselves), just as I would if my neighbor built a copper smelter and was dumping heavy metals into my water supply.

Things like insulin-creating bacteria don't worry me as much because I think it's much easier to keep them inside of laboratories than plants out in a field.

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:41 PM
Gee can you pick out of the lineup who owns stock in Monsanto??

Hell, I own stock in Monsanto, via various index funds.

Alagirl
Aug. 24, 2011, 04:54 PM
I also think there is real reason to be cautious about GMOs not because I truly believe they are All Evil and Doom but because we don't really know what we're doing and because the ability to undo it is pretty much zero.

There's a philosophy called the precautionary principle, which is that if you don't understand the plausible risks, you probably shouldn't do it. There is a responsibility to anticipate risk and to either establish that the risk is not present or to prepare to mitigate it. That's where I'm coming from here.

The Liberty Link rice is a perfect example. When it escaped, there was literally no additional study done on it establishing its benign nature. Why not? Because there was no practical way to remove it from the southeast rice crops. None. What if it had been harmful? I suppose they would have had to burn every single field that had any contamination, stop planting rice for a few years and aggressively weed, and do years of expensive and extensive monitoring and testing.

As it was, farmers in the southeast had huge financial losses because their crop was no longer acceptable to Asian markets.

The potential for harm is enormous if the wrong gene gets out there and there's no one really thinking much about it in the US nor taking responsibility for preventing that outcome. We're all relying on the good citizenship and prescience and careful work of the people of Monsanto and Bayer and the like. I find that unsatisfying.


No, I don't. But I have grave concerns about the direction of agriculture and global food production. And one concern is GMO crops and the patents.

I am not concerned that tomatoes are going to jump off my plate and demand equal rights. I am concerned that there is a need for seed banks. I'm concerned that hedge funds are buying up cropland. I'm concerned that we now rely on a few strains of grain and livestock for all our food. And I'm concerned that the people in charge don't have the brains God gave a paper bag. And I remain unconvinced that lobbysists have a corner on the truth.

What I resent is the assertion that it is best to shut up and obey. It smacks of the " there are starving children in China who would be glad to have that " lecture I got from my parents when I was 6 years old. Im tired of reading that from some posters. Unquestioning obedience is not in my character, but healthy skepticism is.

Both important points!

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 05:05 PM
Blue, It really burns your butt when people present perfectly reasonable arguments you can't refute doesn't it?

I say I like some GMOs and I don't like Round-up so I'm automatically shuffled into the 'crazy hippie' category.

That's fine, it's more fun over here anyway ;)

http://tucsoncitizen.com/ecotucson/2011/08/23/gmos-wont-save-the-world-sorry-ny-times/

Since we're using editorials to back up our arguments.

Xanthoria
Aug. 24, 2011, 06:13 PM
But I have grave concerns about the direction of agriculture and global food production. And one concern is GMO crops and the patents.

Should a person or company not patent something they have made? Should they do years of work then allow everyone to copy it ad lib the very next growing season?

I know it's Monsanto and we don't like them, but they're a business just like all the others. You can't tell them not to patent their products.... I do think they could use a tight slap for their enforcement though... now that's apparently quite something else....

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 06:23 PM
Should a person or company not patent something they have made?

The purpose of patents is to spur innovation for the collective good of the people, not to make money for investors. It's right there in the US Constitution. We generally assume that making money for investors generally spurs innovation for the common good.

Some particular uses, marketing strategy, and enforcement of biotech intellectual property have the power to starve millions of people. One such patent was the Terminator gene that rendered crops sterile - a strategy that they abandoned due to world outcry. Another situation would be where farmers are not allowed to plant seed they can afford, only patented seed that they cannot afford. It is an area that needs to be carefully, carefully watched.

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 06:33 PM
So another way to look at this is risk and benefit.

I use electricity. It carries risk of fire, electrocution, and some people are worried about EMF. I take on those risks.

I also get big benefits. Chatting on the 'net. Light. Heat. Air conditioning.

I get more benefit than risk.

With the Roundup Ready GMO crops, all the benefits are to:
1. Monsanto (profit)
2. Farmer (some convenience, sometimes some profit)

Consumers don't even see a price benefit.

And all the risks are to:
1. Consumer
2. Taxpayers (were there to be some horrible escape)
3. Farmers not using their technology (like nearby organic farmers)
4. Financial liability to Monsanto... that could possibly cause its dissolution.

Even with (4), there's no liability to the individual people who make the decisions.

So the people who take the risk and the people who get the benefits are completely separated. This concerns me.

I would feel much better about GMO crops if there was a clear benefit to the consumer to balance the risk - improved nutrition, for example.

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 06:38 PM
That's the problem. The company has every right to patent its seeds.

But the owners of non GMO crops also have every right to demand Monsanto et al not allow their GMO crops to affect theirs. There are legitimate complaints from a variety of people and industries.

And from a public policy perspective, we must consider whether it is wise to allow a couple of companies to control the global food supply. It's more than a monopoly. When Ma Bell existed, it was a monopoly but millions were not going to starve to death if they couldn't call Grandma on Sunday.

The problem with introducing something alien into the natural world is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to take it back out. Whether it is a feral animal or invasive species. Or an oops with a GMO crop.

Viewed in isolation GMO crops seem benign. In the bigger picture, there are destroyed communities, crops, loss of diversity, and mass consolidation. Lots of lawsuits as well. I am suspicious of those who tout every newest and greatest thing as "progress". Most certainly, farming has become more efficient. And profitable the higher up you are on the corporate food chain. But that does not mean it is not without its drawbacks and risks. What I would prefer to see is more circumspection and less rush to use the food chain in a big science experiment. Historically, our less sophisticated attempts to influence or control nature (introducing plants and animals) have been disastrous.

But I do appreciate and understand that an inventor has a right to patent his invention.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 06:39 PM
So another way to look at this is risk and benefit.

I use electricity. It carries risk of fire, electrocution, and some people are worried about EMF. I take on those risks.

I also get big benefits. Chatting on the 'net. Light. Heat. Air conditioning.

I get more benefit than risk.

With the Roundup Ready GMO crops, all the benefits are to:
1. Monsanto (profit)
2. Farmer (some convenience, sometimes some profit)

Consumers don't even see a price benefit.

And all the risks are to:
1. Consumer
2. Taxpayers (were there to be some horrible escape)
3. Farmers not using their technology (like nearby organic farmers)
4. Financial liability to Monsanto... that could possibly cause its dissolution.

Even with (4), there's no liability to the individual people who make the decisions.

So the people who take the risk and the people who get the benefits are completely separated. This concerns me.

I would feel much better about GMO crops if there was a clear benefit to the consumer to balance the risk - improved nutrition, for example.

Oh, but there is, you use less resources, less trips over the field, less herbicides/pesticides, that is the idea, as someone has already mentioned.

Don't forget, farmers and employees of those GMO companies are also consumers, large numbers of them.;)

Xanthoria
Aug. 24, 2011, 06:48 PM
The purpose of patents is to spur innovation for the collective good of the people, not to make money for investors. It's right there in the US Constitution. We generally assume that making money for investors generally spurs innovation for the common good.

Historically that may have been the intent, but today a patent is more of a protective device. Yes you want your product out there, but what if people copy it?

Lazily, I'll use the wikipedia sentence (since it's not patented!)

"The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission. It is just a right to prevent others' use."


Some particular uses, marketing strategy, and enforcement of biotech intellectual property have the power to starve millions of people. One such patent was the Terminator gene that rendered crops sterile - a strategy that they abandoned due to world outcry. Another situation would be where farmers are not allowed to plant seed they can afford, only patented seed that they cannot afford. It is an area that needs to be carefully, carefully watched.



It's worth noting that a great many food crops are F1 hybrids that have to be recreated annually to get they hybrid vigor that gives them their amazing qualities - in effect they have less value in future years when they become unpredictable F2 cultivars, which kind of shows you how the terminator thing came about... simply a sterile hybrid (as many are)


Interestingly the terminator gene was not developed by Monsanto, but by the USDA et al:

"Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food) by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technology was developed under a cooperative research and development agreement between the Agricultural Research Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Research_Service) of the United States Department of Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture) and Delta and Pine Land company in the 1990s, but it is not yet commercially available.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology#cite_note-ISF-0) Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for poor smallholder farmers, Monsanto Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Company), an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology in 1999.[2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology#cite_note-1)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology

I agree that farmers must be allowed to choose their seed source, and strongly encouraged to bank non patented varieties.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 07:05 PM
That's the problem. The company has every right to patent its seeds.

But the owners of non GMO crops also have every right to demand Monsanto et al not allow their GMO crops to affect theirs. There are legitimate complaints from a variety of people and industries.

And from a public policy perspective, we must consider whether it is wise to allow a couple of companies to control the global food supply. It's more than a monopoly. When Ma Bell existed, it was a monopoly but millions were not going to starve to death if they couldn't call Grandma on Sunday.

The problem with introducing something alien into the natural world is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to take it back out. Whether it is a feral animal or invasive species. Or an oops with a GMO crop.

Viewed in isolation GMO crops seem benign. In the bigger picture, there are destroyed communities, crops, loss of diversity, and mass consolidation. Lots of lawsuits as well. I am suspicious of those who tout every newest and greatest thing as "progress". Most certainly, farming has become more efficient. And profitable the higher up you are on the corporate food chain. But that does not mean it is not without its drawbacks and risks. What I would prefer to see is more circumspection and less rush to use the food chain in a big science experiment. Historically, our less sophisticated attempts to influence or control nature (introducing plants and animals) have been disastrous.

But I do appreciate and understand that an inventor has a right to patent his invention.

We heard exactly the same in the early 1970's (we were part of a study on triticale for grazing and grain) "watch it, watch it, it will contaminate our other crops!" yells when we planted triticale and the elevators didn't want to handle it because it was new and not quite understood:

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/triticale.html

Somehow, that didn't happen either.

When using GMOs, we don't know that much, but know enough that we think we can handle much that may not work as intended and, repeating again, this is but ONE of many questions that are asked and provided for and still the science agrees it is a path that makes sense for now to follow.

Of course, we have already determined that science takes a back seat to every other factor playing in these debates.:no:

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 07:15 PM
...Another situation would be where farmers are not allowed to plant seed they can afford, only patented seed that they cannot afford. It is an area that needs to be carefully, carefully watched.

This does happen and has been come a very big issue in developing nations.

A big multi-national company taking advantage of the poorest people in the world.

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 07:17 PM
Actually Bluey, my sources are scientific journals and publications. And if you think there is consensus in that community, you are mistaken.

But hey, you seem to want to believe that no one knows anything except you. Whatever floats your boat.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 07:22 PM
Actually Bluey, my sources are scientific journals and publications. And if you think there is consensus in that community, you are mistaken.

But hey, you seem to want to believe that no one knows anything except you. Whatever floats your boat.

Can't you discuss the topic at hand, quit picking at me?
I don't tell you what I think of you, don't need to, you know you are nice anyway and well spoken and just, well, nice all around in your internet persona and probably also in person.
So you don't think much of me, I get it, but so what, we are not talking about me here, but GMOs, ok?;)

I also get scientific journals and farm journals with much scientific and other articles about this, take from those what I think agrees with what I know of the science and with farming applications of GMOs, what seems to work for that.:yes:

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 07:30 PM
This does happen and has been come a very big issue in developing nations.

A big multi-national company taking advantage of the poorest people in the world.

Any concrete sources for those defamatory words?:eek:

That seems like saying that your surgeon is operating on you because he wants a new boat.:no:

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 07:47 PM
Again, this isn't personal. I don't dislike you.

This subject is complex. It cannot be dumbed down into a I hate/love GMO crops.

Poltroon provides an example of a community that did not permit GMO crops. The reasoning was sound. That you think they are hippies does that community a disservice. They were protecting their community and the uniqueness of their crops and products. It remains a stable community with viable farming enterprises.

Profitable enterprises. They not only derived no benefit from GMO crops, they saw that what was special about their area would be lost should the Monsanto types gain a foothold.

So one could say it is not that they were against Monsanto, but that they were for more diverse methods of production.

Where GMO cotton has been introduced, the boll weevil has been controlled. But other pests became more of a problem. So producers had to keep applying pesticides anyway. Producers who owed a pretty penny to the corporation no matter what cotton prices were. And in areas where the corporation pulled out, producers were left with nothing but pesticide resistant insects and empty pockets. Entire communities were destroyed.

There are consequences and repercussions to the people, the land,and the communities in which these crops are grown. And to our food supply.

Commenting on those repercussions, or expressing concerns about impacts to humans and animals, is absolutely reasonable. And necessary. What I have found is that the person or group who shouts the loudest about progress, is the most likely to be the one profiting from it. There is nothing wrong with that, but they are hardly objective sources of information.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 08:03 PM
Again, this isn't personal. I don't dislike you.

This subject is complex. It cannot be dumbed down into a I hate/love GMO crops.

Poltroon provides an example of a community that did not permit GMO crops. The reasoning was sound. That you think they are hippies does that community a disservice. They were protecting their community and the uniqueness of their crops and products. It remains a stable community with viable farming enterprises.

Profitable enterprises. They not only derived no benefit from GMO crops, they saw that what was special about their area would be lost should the Monsanto types gain a foothold.

So one could say it is not that they were against Monsanto, but that they were for more diverse methods of production.

Where GMO cotton has been introduced, the boll weevil has been controlled. But other pests became more of a problem. So producers had to keep applying pesticides anyway. Producers who owed a pretty penny to the corporation no matter what cotton prices were. And in areas where the corporation pulled out, producers were left with nothing but pesticide resistant insects and empty pockets. Entire communities were destroyed.

There are consequences and repercussions to the people, the land,and the communities in which these crops are grown. And to our food supply.

Commenting on those repercussions, or expressing concerns about impacts to humans and animals, is absolutely reasonable. And necessary. What I have found is that the person or group who shouts the loudest about progress, is the most likely to be the one profiting from it. There is nothing wrong with that, but they are hardly objective sources of information.


The poster in question understood the teasing about the pot comment, she practically provided it, it is in Wikipedia that her county depends on pot for 1/3 of their agricultural income, I didn't make it up or called anyone hippy.
Not only that, I didn't grow up in the USA and pot or hippy don't have any connotation to me, just don't have any frame of reference at all for that, it was a back and forth verbal sparring with information that is true, not any other to it.

I have explained and will again, I don't have any personal interest in who does what with GMOs.
My direct interest is to defend science against those that dismiss and mistrust it right off, on some odd principle, as it is what is giving them the world they have today and, if they stop to think, it is a very very good world, warts and all, because of those uses of science, imperfect as they are.

Don't try to deny it, it is very plain, neo-neo luddites, even if when pressed to think then they back off, to come right back again with more senseless claims against good science.

That so many are against science is sad to me, very sad.

To me GMOs are very interesting, lets see what we can do, lets try to do it right, but lets try, see where we go with them, just as the first ones did with electricity and motors and radiation and vaccines and triticale and, and, and ... and now GMOs

JSwan
Aug. 24, 2011, 08:15 PM
That may be true but there are no neo luddites posting on this thread. Nor is anyone on this thread anti science.

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 09:01 PM
Any concrete sources for those defamatory words?:eek:

You really don't listen to you? Or do you just not care enough about people half a world away?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=India+Farm+Suicides

Do you honestly not see the evil behind selling something to the poorest people that they are unable to propagate themselves until they are driven into debt do deep they will never emerge from it?

Or even better, when it doesn't produce any food at all and hundred get to starve because of it?

I sincerely don't understand how you can count yourself educated on this topic when you refuse to even read information coming from the other side.

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 09:05 PM
That may be true but there are no neo luddites posting on this thread. Nor is anyone on this thread anti science.

I love technology! I think it's fabulous! Did you see the TED talks when they made a paraplegic walk!?!? :eek: Made me tear up quite frankly.

I also love humanity, my home planet, and all the creatures on it.

There is a huge difference between anti-technology, and anti-consumerism. I don't own an ipad but I certainly own an alarm clock (I don't rely on my rooster).

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 09:09 PM
Hate to do this to everyone who did actually bother to go read, but here is the editorial response I linked to, since someone obviously don't understand this:

http://www.grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-08-20-why-gmos-wont-save-world-nina-federoff-new-york-times


Industrial Agriculture
Sorry, NY Times: GMOs still won’t save the world
by Anna Lappe


With all due respect, Nina Federoff’s New York Times op-ed reads like it was written two decades ago, when the jury was still out about the potential of the biotech industry to reduce hunger, increase nutritional quality in foods, and decrease agriculture’s reliance on toxic chemicals and other expensive inputs that most of the world’s farmers can’t afford.

With more than 15 years of commercialized GMOs behind us, we know not to believe these promises any longer.

Around the world, from the Government Office for Science in the U.K. to the National Research Council in the United States to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N., there is consensus: In order to address the roots of hunger today and build a food system that will feed humanity into the future, we must invest in “sustainable intensification”—not expensive GMO technology that threatens biodiversity, has never proven its superiority, even in yields, and locks us into dependence on fossil fuels, fossil water, and agrochemicals.

By definition, sustainable intensification means producing abundant food while reducing agriculture’s negative impacts on the environment. Water pollution from pesticide run-off and soil degradation from synthetic fertilizer use are just two examples of the costs of industrial agriculture. And, mind you, nearly all of the GMO crops planted today rely on synthetic fertilizer and pesticides.

Sustainable farming has many other co-benefits as well, including improving the natural environment by increasing soil carbon content, protecting watersheds and biodiversity, and decreasing the human health risks from exposures to toxic chemicals. In its policymaker’s guide to sustainable intensification, the FAO states clearly that the “present paradigm” in agriculture—of which Federoff’s beloved GMOs play a starring role—“cannot meet the challenges of the new millennium.”

So while we hear from GMO proponents about the wonders of these crops, the proof is in the fields. According to the FAO, sustainable practices have helped to “reduce crops’ water needs by 30 percent and the energy costs of production by up to 60 percent.” In one of the largest studies [PDF] of ecological farming, in 57 countries, researchers found an average yield increase of 80 percent. In East African countries, yields shot up 128 percent.

What about the specific claims that GMOs confer much-desired benefits: nutritional improvements, drought resilience, or fewer pesticides?

A much-touted effort in Kenya to develop a genetically engineered virus-resistant sweet potato failed after 10 years, millions of dollars, and countless hours of effort. Not only did it fail, but researchers in Uganda [PDF] have developed varieties of sweet potatoes resistant to the same virus and with greater levels of beta carotene (aitamin A)—not with genetic engineering, but with conventional breeding.

Federoff boasts that GMOs reduce pesticide usage, but an analysis of 13 years of commercialized GMOs in the United States actually found a dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides used on these crops that swamped the relatively small reduction in insecticide use attributable to GMO corn and cotton during that same period. On the other hand, an FAO ecological farming program in six countries in West Africa helped farmers reduce chemical pesticide use as much as 92 percent while increasing their net value of production by as much as 61 percent.

Perhaps most gravely, Federoff’s message that GMOs are the key to addressing our planet’s food needs ignores the political and economic context of agricultural interventions.

What’s unique to sustainable interventions is that they build farmer and community capacity and strengthen social networks. “Social capital”—as development wonks would say—is created. In a study of sustainable farming projects involving 10 million farmers across the African continent, researchers found that adopting sustainable intensification techniques not only upped production significantly, but, more importantly, increased the overall wealth of farming communities, encouraged women’s participation and education, and built strong social bonds that have helped these communities strengthen their economies and continue to learn, develop, and adapt their farming practices.

In a world rocked with volatile markets, a volatile climate, and diminishing natural resources, we need to turn our attention to investing in the proven sustainable intensification techniques that create resilient communities, not to the still-hollow promises of GMO promoters.

Those peer-reviewed study things, are real science. Not what the people getting paid the big bucks pay other people to say. That isn't real science.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 09:29 PM
Hate to do this to everyone who did actually bother to go read, but here is the editorial response I linked to, since someone obviously don't understand this:

http://www.grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-08-20-why-gmos-wont-save-world-nina-federoff-new-york-times



Those peer-reviewed study things, are real science. Not what the people getting paid the big bucks pay other people to say. That isn't real science.

:lol:

Yes, I see, you know how to use google.

Then, bringing a blog from someone asking for money for "greenspeak" really only shows us where your words come from.
I have already mentioned that you can find 100 pages of google with such comments to one with anything sensible to say about what GMOs really are, not what they think they are.:no:

Did you perhaps read the NY article that lady is making such a nice critique of first, before coming here to post her words, that are just, well, more of the same detractors of GMOs keep presenting while pushing their agendas/websites?;)

deltawave
Aug. 24, 2011, 09:49 PM
I'm sorry, but anyone (on EITHER side) who substitutes an editorial, blog, or agenda-driven publication for an actual personal synthesis of the facts based on actual STUDY of the topic is leaving large, bloody bullet holes in their feet. And not doing their viewpoint any good, either.

I'll go back to my original stance: still waiting for an evenhanded, non-partisan, dispassionate discussion. Will likely KEEP waiting. :lol:

I must say that this has been one of the more rational threads. Bluey, have you noticed that nobody here is being all that unreasonable? It seems like you're still swinging at posters from other threads on other topics--nobody is being a Neo-Luddite here at the moment from what I can read. :confused:

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 10:02 PM
I'm sorry, but anyone (on EITHER side) who substitutes an editorial, blog, or agenda-driven publication for an actual personal synthesis of the facts based on actual STUDY of the topic is leaving large, bloody bullet holes in their feet. And not doing their viewpoint any good, either.

I'll go back to my original stance: still waiting for an evenhanded, non-partisan, dispassionate discussion. Will likely KEEP waiting. :lol:

I must say that this has been one of the more rational threads. Bluey, have you noticed that nobody here is being all that unreasonable? It seems like you're still swinging at posters from other threads on other topics--nobody is being a Neo-Luddite here at the moment from what I can read. :confused:

I may point out that I was dumped on first about other topics, if you want to be fair.:yes:

Sorry, you are right, of course, I should be more clear with my words.
I mean neo-neo luddites in spirit, no one here is one literally, or they would not even have a computer.
My words were reflecting the anti science bias some so strongly hold, while weakly stating oh, but they are all for science, just not GMOs.:confused:

Kid of a contradiction, or they don't realize what GMOs are, that is not just a few seed lines, as that lady in the latest article seems to think.

Yes ma'm, I will mind my manners, won't be calling anyone luddite any more.:(

deltawave
Aug. 24, 2011, 10:57 PM
It is entirely possible to be pro-science and also very anxious and concerned about the pace of technology and the checks and balances (or lack thereof).

That, I think, is what people are trying to say in this particular thread.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2011, 11:05 PM
It is entirely possible to be pro-science and also very anxious and concerned about the pace of technology and the checks and balances (or lack thereof).

That, I think, is what people are trying to say in this particular thread.

That too especially in the latest pages, backtracking on the flat out rejection of GMOs they started with, once they are understanding more how encompassing and intricate these problems really are.:yes:

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 11:29 PM
I have never suggested a full on block of GMOs, I've mentioned in almost every post that there are some I actually like.

You've got to stop painting everyone with the same stereotypical brush, otherwise we should all just assume you're a conservative, gun-totin', back-wards-thinking, immig'ant hatin', science fear'ng, texan. And that wouldn't be very nice would it?

Well it works the same way when you push what you assume "hippies" should believe, on the people disagreeing with you. I still use deodorant, but I'd also prefer my milk without human growth hormone.

My point of posting the editorial response was not the words itself but the studies it linked too; and that the one Bluey posted above was from the same batch of crap she tried to serve up before. Find new, reliable and honest sources and you may have a real case, but she's yet to come up with any of that.


DW I've come to realize Bluey just can't stand those of us with a different point of view on things, she's got to be right because that is just the way the world works for her. She constantly makes attacks on people that don't seem to actual exist, or at least exist as the people disagreeing with her on COTH but that's just the way she wants to see them.

Personally I don't care, the more people that read these threads (even a little of it, I know they get long) the more people may at least start thinking about what we're talking about. You don't need to pick a side YES/NO. It's good enough that you start to consider the possibilities that there are somethings in the world that affect your everyday life; and either you're okay with them or you feel that needs to change. To me this is entirely about civil liberties, we should all have the right to choose what we put into our bodies, instead of having the government or big corporations put into them what they want.

I see the growing trend behind people wanting to understand and be apart of where there food comes from and I think every farmer should be celebrating for it. When you've got people voluntarily handing over more money because they want to support local agriculture... well I just don't think those of us on the side of change are the ones wearing the tin-foil hats to think anything about that is bad.


Blue you want to fight the nut-bars at PETA go right a flippin' head, I'll be right behind you; but you can't continue to fight against a measured well-balanced defense with their 'we're all stupid veg heads who don't understand the real world' angle, because it just isn't true.

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 11:32 PM
Yes, I see, you know how to use google.


So you still haven't bothered to look into this problem?
So... we should go with the you just don't give a crap?

Which is fine, I guess, that's your right. I just try to NOT to support evil you know... but that's just me, and my personal morals.

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 11:37 PM
My words were reflecting the anti science bias some so strongly hold, while weakly stating oh, but they are all for science, just not GMOs.:confused:

In Ye Olde Science School, I was carefully trained not only to know my science, but to think ahead about anything I was working on and the social and other repercussions thereof.

Nes
Aug. 24, 2011, 11:43 PM
In Ye Olde Science School, I was carefully trained not only to know my science, but to think ahead about anything I was working on and the social and other repercussions thereof.

Because, if for no other reason, if you're not careful and read the labels, you may blow up the lab :lol:

poltroon
Aug. 24, 2011, 11:53 PM
Because, if for no other reason, if you're not careful and read the labels, you may blow up the lab :lol:

Probably more because several faculty worked on the Manhattan Project.

Bluey
Aug. 25, 2011, 06:51 AM
Probably more because several faculty worked on the Manhattan Project.

There is this fellow that did very well for himself in this world, in fact became one of the richest people around.

With all those riches, that a person never could use if they lived several lives, decided to see what could be done to help others.

A foundation was started, a think tank was put together of other of the most successful people in the world, that meet every so often with others with the best, most progressive ideas and the foundation started trying to go where the need for help was greatest.

Those places and needs were very diverse, the problems encountered complicated by geography, economics, social and political problems, but the foundation tried to skirt around the problems to get some help were it was so badly needed.

That foundation attacked the problems from all angles, best it could, with health improvements, getting some basic infrastructure and education where needed, past the providing supplies right now stage, to trying to help so those affected could provide for themselves.

So, after a few years of that, the whole world happily praising that foundation for the good work it was doing, guess what, the foundation seemingly made the strategical mistake of promoting what, in their situation, was a great improvement for certain situations, GMO crops.

The howling from those that are against GMOs could be then heard around the world.
Now that previously so much praised foundation and it's founder became targets of vicious attacks.
How did he dare do that, go against what certain groups think it is, as someone put it right here:

---"...Which is fine, I guess, that's your right. I just try to NOT to support evil you know... but that's just me, and my personal morals."---

:eek:

So, now, this fellow, his foundation, that could do no wrong before, since daring to go against what some in his society, that think they hold the high "moral" ground on what he should do, on what others should do, are burned at the stake of public opinion.
Whole pages of google now are full of hits on websites dedicated to try to find fault with anything that fellow and his foundation does, find evil motivation, where before he was their saint.

All because he dared think GMO crops were acceptable in some situations, for certain goals.
That fellow, his foundation and think tank could not have stumbled any worse in the arena of public opinion.
Yes, I expect it was a shock to find himself on the receiving end of that frenzy of hate that has been whipped against GMOs, when all he was doing is try to help fellow humans in need.
Now that GMOs are involved, the talk turned from "how can we help him and his foundation", to "they are after power and profits on the backs of the poor", which is absurd, as is the general stance the general clueless public has been talked into against GMOs.
They are today one of the buzzwords for all that is wrong with science, that those that need windmills to tilt in their life love to attack.

The only difference with that foundation and it's goals and what it has been trying to do, before and after GMOs came in the picture, was that he and his foundation and think tank dared say GMOs were not the evil some want them to represent.
Public opinion tends to be fickle.:yes:

While there are many important questions surrounding GMOs in all their many applications, just as there has been with any new application of technologies, we really do want to avoid seeing what GMOs can do by doing the equivalent of dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, today's violent attacks on them and anyone that dares suggest we use them just seem a bit out of place, especially when individual "morals" are being brought forth to the table to decide if a person is good or evil by measuring how much they support or deny their support of GMOs.

I think to lower to personal attacks on the "morals" of individuals in this debate, calling them evil because they don't agree with you, claiming the high "moral" ground, halo shining brightly, when it comes to acceptance of GMOs place in the world, that seem a bit absurd.:confused:

I do think you meant "ethical", not "moral".
Best I know, being against science in general, GMOs in particular, while part of some religion's world views, is not yet considered it's own independent religion with moral imperatives, but maybe it is becoming one today.:(

deltawave
Aug. 25, 2011, 07:58 AM
Bluey, I'm not sure who you're arguing with any more? :confused:

Just about everyone left on this thread is pretty darned moderate in their views. The far-to-the-edge types are long gone, probably out of boredom. :lol: Nobody likes (or sticks around for) a bunch of middle-of-the road viewpoints. :p

Daydream Believer
Aug. 25, 2011, 08:11 AM
Bluey, I'm not sure who you're arguing with any more? :confused:

Just about everyone left on this thread is pretty darned moderate in their views. The far-to-the-edge types are long gone, probably out of boredom. :lol: Nobody likes (or sticks around for) a bunch of middle-of-the road viewpoints. :p

Just catching up on this before I head out and make ready for a major hurricane which has preoccupied me a bit the last few days. I thought I'd comment on what you just said. While I have little affection for GMO crops and organisms, I will admit that some could be helpful if used carefully and with strong controls. Like many others, I'm very concerned about the free rein that Monsanto has had and the problems becoming obvious in the widespread use of GMO's. I also do not want to see my property invaded by Monsanto's plants and their DNA and it seems inevitable that this stuff will spread if given a chance.

Just curious...how many of you actually read the OP's article on the possibility of an organism actually causing widespread crop damage in GMO's? I did not find it sensationalist or crazy but something I'd like to see addressed by science and studied.

I have learned over a long period of time that discussion with Bluey is absolutely pointless. She will rant and rave and go on and on and take anything you say out of context and inevitably it will turn to animal rights activists or another of her favorite topics.

Bluey
Aug. 25, 2011, 08:43 AM
Bluey, I'm not sure who you're arguing with any more? :confused:

Just about everyone left on this thread is pretty darned moderate in their views. The far-to-the-edge types are long gone, probably out of boredom. :lol: Nobody likes (or sticks around for) a bunch of middle-of-the road viewpoints. :p

Arguing?
I thought we were debating the merits and demerits of GMOs, bringing facts and data to counteract mere opinions.

Arguing?:confused:

Bluey
Aug. 25, 2011, 08:45 AM
Just catching up on this before I head out and make ready for a major hurricane which has preoccupied me a bit the last few days. I thought I'd comment on what you just said. While I have little affection for GMO crops and organisms, I will admit that some could be helpful if used carefully and with strong controls. Like many others, I'm very concerned about the free rein that Monsanto has had and the problems becoming obvious in the widespread use of GMO's. I also do not want to see my property invaded by Monsanto's plants and their DNA and it seems inevitable that this stuff will spread if given a chance.

Just curious...how many of you actually read the OP's article on the possibility of an organism actually causing widespread crop damage in GMO's? I did not find it sensationalist or crazy but something I'd like to see addressed by science and studied.

I have learned over a long period of time that discussion with Bluey is absolutely pointless. She will rant and rave and go on and on and take anything you say out of context and inevitably it will turn to animal rights activists or another of her favorite topics.

I hope you can keep you and yours safe.
This does look like a heck of a storm, they said possibly the strongest since 1950.:eek:

Maybe it will spare your area from the worst.:yes:

Nes
Aug. 25, 2011, 10:29 AM
...I have learned over a long period of time that discussion with Bluey is absolutely pointless. She will rant and rave and go on and on and take anything you say out of context and inevitably it will turn to animal rights activists or another of her favorite topics.

I know, but it's just so much fun!
'specially on a rainy day.

Unfortunately when it comes to plants and bacteria and such we just can't put fences up to keep them on one person's land and not another.

We had a bit of a problem with the cows getting out when we first moved in, and that damage was visible. But every time my neighbour sprays his fields, it drifts over to my 'no-pesticide' farm. There aren't any fences I can put up to keep that from happening :(.

It works the same way with GMO, in some ways creating a terminator gene is actually a good thing, so that the GMO can't cross-bred; but in so many other ways it's a terrible thing because you're preventing people from saving seed - which is how agriculture began thousands of years ago!

And yes, yes, intellectual property rights, it's very true. At the same time I think there is a large push to move towards a more open community, where people contribute to a large pool of knowledge for educational and scientific gain instead of monetary.

Then again, I'm typing from a linux-based OS right now :lol:

Alagirl
Aug. 25, 2011, 10:39 AM
aight ladies....
I loff you all, but maybe we can refrain from bickering?

You do have the option to ignore other posters.

I know, I know, I am assuming powers here I don't have even in my dreams, but I am in a cranky mood and don't want my piece of COTH heaven rumbling right now....:no:

I think we all need to step back for a second here, and take a deep breath.
Because I have fund myself more often than not agreeing with Bluey, does not mean I won't look with a lot of skepsis at anything Monsanto throws at us, or have a close eye on our friends from the government (you know, those folks that are supposed to make the stuff safe for us and fail too often)

I have in the passed strongly disagreed with DDB. I am sure we will do so again, But I have also found a lot of similarities in the way we think.

So what I propose is that either side should give it an honest try to walk a mile in the other person's shoe.

Or have a drink, it's 5 o'clock somewhere.

In the meantime I get beer and popcorn...though I'd rather go postal on a football coach right now...long story, remind me on OT day....

philosoraptor
Aug. 25, 2011, 11:01 AM
I have no problem with the idea of genetic engineering. I am a fan of science, and I was thrilled to play with gene splicing in my biology classes in college.

However, your right to engineer and grow GM plants end when they're planted out in the open, where they spread. Eventually all farms will be infected with the new genes, whether the farmer wants them or not.

A source of worry is that the patent holder, Monsanto, has sued farmers whose crops were DAMAGED by Monanto's GM seed/pollen blowing in. Monanto instead sues the farmer, claiming patent infringement. Monsanto is running small farmers out of business. The only way to save the farm is to settle and pay Monsanto to have a use license from that year on -- even if you really never wanted GM crops on your land.

In 3rd world nations such as India big companies like Monsanto and Cargill talk peasant farmers into plowing under traditional crops. They're told the new crop will grow wonderfully and be valuable as an export. They don't tell the farmer the crop wasn't really bred for their local climate. Or that these are "terminator" seeds, engineered to produce plants that are sterile. When the crops don't do well, the farmer becomes bankrupt. He can't try again next year because he has no seed to use. He's often left owing a chunk of money to the seed corporation, which can drive him right off the land.

This is the future of our food supply: globalized, controlled by a monopoly of a few huge corporations, lacking integrity, short-term profit driven at all costs.

Daydream Believer
Aug. 25, 2011, 11:22 AM
Alagirl...I'm not bickering but just stating fact. The problem is that respect for each others right to have a differing opinion has to go both ways. I don't lose sleep at night over it. I respect anyone's right to disagree with me but a certain poster can't stand that someone else might not see things their way or simply not agree with their POV and it does get old trying to deal with that. I think you know who that poster is. When people like JSwan who is as solid and sensible as they come post what she did in this thread, you'll see my frustration is shared by others.

Sorry I can't sit here and play long. I'm headed off to fill up propane and gas cans and then come home and batten down. Gotta go....

Alagirl
Aug. 25, 2011, 12:29 PM
Alagirl...I'm not bickering but just stating fact. The problem is that respect for each others right to have a differing opinion has to go both ways. I don't lose sleep at night over it. I respect anyone's right to disagree with me but a certain poster can't stand that someone else might not see things their way or simply not agree with their POV and it does get old trying to deal with that. I think you know who that poster is. When people like JSwan who is as solid and sensible as they come post what she did in this thread, you'll see my frustration is shared by others.

Sorry I can't sit here and play long. I'm headed off to fill up propane and gas cans and then come home and batten down. Gotta go....


:)

Take care, hope the worst misses you guys.

Nes
Aug. 25, 2011, 01:07 PM
Best of luck DB! :)