[Schmuto]

Okay, I get your point. And yes, I would prefer not to have morons in charge of policy decisions and in power. I'm an anarchist (there, I said it), though, when you get right down to it, so all this voting stuff is kind of moot relative to how I think things should ideally work.

Regardless of that issue, I still think GM food is a bad, bad idea under the current system (and probably under any system that could produce it, realistically).

I agree that GMOs offer a road to perdition for various reasons.

I don't see the danger so much as in the chemistry (which is possible) as much as I do in the centralization of control of the food supply and the reduction of variability in the genomic make up of our crops.

Monsanto is evil, simple as that.

[Ludi]

Regardless of that issue, I still think GM food is a bad, bad idea under the current system (and probably under any system that could produce it, realistically).

Based on what?

A waste of time, money, lives, and land.

"Monsanto comes to India promising illiterate farmers radical yield increases (empty promises), and in turn the farmer (usually for the first time in his life) takes on debt to buy Monsanto’s seeds. He then has to take on additional debt to pay for the accompanying herbicides, pesticides, irrigation, and machinery needed to make these GMO crops grow. If they don’t have the credit to buy the whole package — say they couldn’t afford to irrigate their fields and instead relied on rain which never came (or came at the wrong time in the sensitive lifespan of the GE plant) — then they experience a loss: no increased yields, and now mountains of unpayable debt.

The result? They take their lives."


http://www.foodrenegade.com/vandana-shi ... s-of-gmos/

'Apr 14, 2009
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The use of genetically engineered corn and soybeans in the United States for more than a decade has had little impact on crop yields despite claims that they could ease looming food shortages, a study has concluded.

"A hard-nosed assessment of this expensive technology's achievements to date gives little confidence that it will play a major role in helping the world feed itself in the forseeable future," said the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The study evaluated the effect on corn and soybean crop yields of genetically engineered varieties commercialized in the United States over the past 13 years, examining peer-reviewed academic studies that date back to the early 1990s.

"Based on that record, we conclude that GE (genetic engineering) has done little to increase overall crop yields," it said.

The report said genetically engineered soybeans account for 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States, while genetically engineered corn accounts for 63 percent of the US corn crop.

"Overall, corn and soybean yields have risen substantially over the last 15 years, but largely not as a result of the GE traits," the report said. "Most of the gains are due to traditional breeding or improvement of other agricultural practices."

It found that corn and soybeans that were genetically modified to increase their tolerance to herbicides "have not increased operational yields, whether on a per acre or national basis, compared to conventional methods that rely on other available herbicides."

Corn modified with genes from Bt, or Bacillus thuringienisis, bacteria for resistance to several kinds of insects did provide higher yields, but the study estimated the increase at between 0.2 and 0.3 percent a year on average over the past 13 years.
Overall corn yields in the United States have increased an average of about one percent a year, it said.

"More specifically, US Department of Agriculture data indicate that the average corn production per acre nationwide over the past five years (2004-2008) was about 28 percent higher than for the five-year period 1991-1995," it said.

"But our analysis of specific yield studies concludes that only 4-5 percent of that increase is attributable to Bt, meaning an increase of about 24-25 percent must be due to other factors such as conventional breeding," it said.'


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... suzYyxMd6Q

[dunewalker]

The only issue for GMOs is allergy. If you put a gene in a food and that gene expresses a protein in the part that is eaten, it generally results in a new antigen.

Beyond that, the fear of GMOs is irrational and equivalent to the fear of ghosts.

If you believe in ghosts you are a moron who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Last I read, you said you were a lawyer, not a geneticist. On the Biden 9/11 thread you posted this:


"It's like you found a foreign pair of men's boxers in your wife's purse, along with condoms, although you don't use condoms, and you say to your best friend, who's trying to convince you to look into further: 'but there's no way we can tell how they got in her purse or why they are there.'
You're right, of course, but the more interesting analysis is why you are content to do nothing further."


Yet on this thread you ridicule the idea that there may be more science necessary to prove that GMO is safe. Go figure...

[Katzepfote]

I'm not going to get in the whole debate on whether there should be a poll test over a voter's belief (or lack of) in ghosts or the like. However, I wouldn't be so quick to disregard this group's warnings. I'm not so sure I trust the studies that say everything's A-OK with GMOs and "Nope, no problem here!". There's a lot of big bucks riding on the question and I'd say that the GMO proponents possess the lion's share of that money and have a lot invested in whether this particular technology goes forward or not.

Outcast: your friend who thinks that there's nothing to it -- do they work in some capacity for the biotech field? Don't take offense, I realize that your friend could just be s.o. well read in the field with no particular axe to grind. However, if their future livelihood or stock dividends depend on GMOs, that could color their outlook.

About three years ago, we went to a birthday party for a school chum of my stepson. I was chatting with the boy's father, a pleasant soft-spoken man. In the course of the conversation, he informed me that he worked for Monsanto in this field. (I live in St. Louis where the Great MonSatan's HQ is located.) Without any prompting from me. this seemingly laid-back guy launched into an impassioned defense of Monsanto and their biotech technologies: "I know that many people think we're horrible, but we are trying to help people. Really! We are doing good work there! We're feeding the hungry. This is a really good thing that we're doing for mankind." That's the gist of it more or less. I didn't engage him in a debate as it was a kid's party and I didn't want to ruin their fun or my stepson's friendship.

I thought about it afterwards though and the fact that he immediately went on the defensive told me that he's well aware of the less-than-positive opinion of his employer and their products in the minds of many. He'd probably run into some people who'd given him grief in the past about Monsanto. I also wondered whether he might have been reciting a party line learned, perhaps, in a seminar instructing Monsanto employees on how to be "ambassadors" to the general public. "See we're not all as bad as that. We're helping to feed the world's hungry! People opposed to our work are like those who opposed the wheel, the telephone, the polio vaccine, etc.

I can't view this man as a bad guy. I think that he is sincere in his belief that GMOs can save the world and that he'd probably view the group that issued this paper as Luddite proponents of "junk science." However as he works in the labs and not in the executive suite where the ultimate orders are issued, I view him more charitably than if he were at the top of the totem pole. If you're a biotech researcher who had invested years of study to get your graduate degrees, that would be your ultimate dream job. Working in what I'm sure are state-of-the-art labs and to be quite generously compensated for it, too.

[Schmuto]

The only issue for GMOs is allergy. If you put a gene in a food and that gene expresses a protein in the part that is eaten, it generally results in a new antigen.

Beyond that, the fear of GMOs is irrational and equivalent to the fear of ghosts.

If you believe in ghosts you are a moron who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Last I read, you said you were a lawyer, not a geneticist. . . .


Yet on this thread you ridicule the idea that there may be more science necessary to prove that GMO is safe. Go figure...

I can't be both a lawyer and a geneticist?

Anyway, I am all for continuing to research GMOs and potential health effects.
I'm also 100% behind truth in labeling - at least to the extent that any truthful comment should be allowed on any food - e.g. "this product made from corn that is not GM."

But as it stands now, the impact of GMOs on human health has not been shown - or evenly remotely suggested - to be negative.

The genetics are really rather simple -

Put in new gene.
Get new protein product.

That's it.

It's immunology 101 that polynucleotides do not cause any immune response.

So all that's left is to consider the protein being made.

Proteins can elicit a really strong immune response.

But beyond that, there's just nothing.

Not yet, anyhow.

Until there is, fear of GMOs stems mostly from the same irrational considerations that cause people to fear ghosts, or, in my case, goblins.

So I'm all for labeling to give people choice. I'm also all for funding research to look for issues. Further, I think GMOs are most likely a bad path to take.

I'm not for hysteria, however.

The Flavor Saver tomato was removed from the shelves because of hysteria.

In that case, they actually removed DNA to get a tomato that lacked the ability to cause itself to rot through the function of a gene, which it does naturally.

The FS tomato therefore had nothing new in it, but instead was the same as any other tomato minus some DNA.

Why did it die? Because people who believe in the Easter Bunny were afraid of it.

Here's a tempered thought:

If you don't know:
what the difference between DNA and RNA is . . .
or how DNA is replicated . . .
or what the difference is between a virus and a bacterium . . .
or how DNA is processed in the gut of a human . . .

. . . then you probably should keep your mouth shut when it comes to GMOs because you don't have any basis from which to understand it.

Get educated, or, lacking the will to do that, make choices for yourself based on your voodoo religion and stop being so hysterical.

[outcast]

Outcast: your friend who thinks that there's nothing to it -- do they work in some capacity for the biotech field? Don't take offense, I realize that your friend could just be s.o. well read in the field with no particular axe to grind. However, if their future livelihood or stock dividends depend on GMOs, that could color their outlook.

He's a biology major in university, I'll take his word over left wing bunk anyday. Something you guys just don't get is that there is a huge amount of misinformation, garbage studies, and general BS about GMO, with most of it coming from the anti-GMO camp.

I also asked someone else with real knowledge about the science what his opinions were the same.

[manu]

The only issue for GMOs is allergy. If you put a gene in a food and that gene expresses a protein in the part that is eaten, it generally results in a new antigen.

Beyond that, the fear of GMOs is irrational and equivalent to the fear of ghosts.

If you believe in ghosts you are a moron who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Last I read, you said you were a lawyer, not a geneticist. . . .


Yet on this thread you ridicule the idea that there may be more science necessary to prove that GMO is safe. Go figure...

I can't be both a lawyer and a geneticist?

Anyway, I am all for continuing to research GMOs and potential health effects.
I'm also 100% behind truth in labeling - at least to the extent that any truthful comment should be allowed on any food - e.g. "this product made from corn that is not GM."

But as it stands now, the impact of GMOs on human health has not been shown - or evenly remotely suggested - to be negative.

The genetics are really rather simple -

Put in new gene.
Get new protein product.

That's it.

It's immunology 101 that polynucleotides do not cause any immune response.

So all that's left is to consider the protein being made.

Proteins can elicit a really strong immune response.

But beyond that, there's just nothing.

Not yet, anyhow.

Until there is, fear of GMOs stems mostly from the same irrational considerations that cause people to fear ghosts, or, in my case, goblins.

So I'm all for labeling to give people choice. I'm also all for funding research to look for issues. Further, I think GMOs are most likely a bad path to take.

I'm not for hysteria, however.

The Flavor Saver tomato was removed from the shelves because of hysteria.

In that case, they actually removed DNA to get a tomato that lacked the ability to cause itself to rot through the function of a gene, which it does naturally.

The FS tomato therefore had nothing new in it, but instead was the same as any other tomato minus some DNA.

Why did it die? Because people who believe in the Easter Bunny were afraid of it.

Here's a tempered thought:

If you don't know:
what the difference between DNA and RNA is . . .
or how DNA is replicated . . .
or what the difference is between a virus and a bacterium . . .
or how DNA is processed in the gut of a human . . .

. . . then you probably should keep your mouth shut when it comes to GMOs because you don't have any basis from which to understand it.

Get educated, or, lacking the will to do that, make choices for yourself based on your voodoo religion and stop being so hysterical.

So you are one of the lemmings that just suck up everything that a company like Monsanto tells you. I will tell you this, they are a group that is excels at lying. Maybe you should watch To Patent a Pig, all about Monsanto. Also in that documentary they interview some former employees of Monsanto. No one holds them accountable for all the lies because they work hand and hand with the dirty politicians who get top jobs in the Company. It's like a revolving door. It is all documented and has been said before but it is sad to see people, esp. on this site, that think they know it all and they are the ones who are the most blind.
As far as ghosts, they do exist, and you had better be careful or when you leave this gross body, your soul will be trapped in a suble ghost body.
As far as DNA or RNA, the scientists may have some theory but that is all. They will change that theory every few years. They remind me of frogs in a well. When you tell them about the big ocean, they say, is it twice the size of the well? Three times as big? So don't believe every thing they say, they also don't know it all. Getting back to Monsanto, they are also expert in killing. Instead of being in harmony with nature they try to kill the plants, the bugs, and ultimately they will kill off the birds, the bees and the humans. They have sprayed Mexico, Columbia, Vietnam just to name a few countries which they have spray millions of tons of chemicals on. What a legacy!

[smallpoxgirl]

The genetics are really rather simple -

Put in new gene.
Get new protein product.

That's it.

...

Get educated, or, lacking the will to do that, make choices for yourself based on your voodoo religion and stop being so hysterical.

That's an incredibly simplistic view of the whole issue. In fact the effects of introducing novel genes can lead to quite unpredictable outcomes. Perhaps you're aware of the monarch butterfly die off caused by genetically modified corn pollen? link Once the introduced genes are out there, they spread into non-modified crops and there's no reeling them back in. There's really no such thing as non-modified rape crops any more for example. It creates a very significant concern that introduced genes can create very unpleasant outcomes that may not be obvious until the cat is out of the bag.

[Schmuto]

As far as ghosts, they do exist, and you had better be careful or when you leave this gross body, your soul will be trapped in a suble ghost body.

Folks, you paying attention? This person has the same voting power as me. He thinks I'm going to end up in a "suble ghost body."

Think about it. Who do you want making the rational calls?

As far as DNA or RNA, the scientists may have some theory but that is all. They will change that theory every few years.

Really? DNA is a theory is it? And it changes?
Why don't you just admit you have zero comprehension of genetics?

[Schmuto]

The genetics are really rather simple - Put in new gene. Get new protein product. That's it ..
Get educated, or, lacking the will to do that, make choices for yourself based on your voodoo religion and stop being so hysterical.

That's an incredibly simplistic view of the whole issue. In fact the effects of introducing novel genes can lead to quite unpredictable outcomes. Perhaps you're aware of the monarch butterfly die off caused by genetically modified corn pollen? link Once the introduced genes are out there, they spread into non-modified crops and there's no reeling them back in. There's really no such thing as non-modified rape crops any more for example. It creates a very significant concern that introduced genes can create very unpleasant outcomes that may not be obvious until the cat is out of the bag.

Not only am I aware of the Monarch Butterfly "die off", I, unlike most everybody else, read the primary literature on it.

I recommend that you all do. It is, after all, only a single page Nature article, as I recall.

What they did in that experiment was to put monarch caterpillars in a cage, feed them straight BT corn pollen, essentially, and then conclude that BT corn caused "die off."

It was embarrassing.

There is zero evidence that BT corn pollen kills any species in the wild.

In order for BT corn pollen to kill monarch butterflies, it first has to be wind blown onto milkweed, which is the only plant monarchs eat - they acquire their toxicity from the weed (cool sh-t there!).

So the experiment was a complete joke because it put the levels of BT pollen at thousand-fold real levels, and doesn't give the caterpillar the choice of moving to a leaf that is not painted with the pollen.

In any case, even if it was true that milkweed coated in BT corn pollen could kill monarchs eating the weed, you're still only talking about an incredibly small fringe around a corn field that is going to have any appreciable pollen on it.

The publication was a hit piece and garbage science. They could easily have gone to a corn field and determined real conditions and emulated those, but they wanted the splash headline - "pretty insect killed by evil GMO." They got it.

I'm not sure about the rapeseed issue you raise. Obviously, there is the risk of cross pollination.

But is that different than what we had before GMOs?

If guy A was growing strain Z and guy B is growing strain Y, isn't cross pollination inevitable?

The answer to that is the same as the answer to the GMO question.

As for the "unintended consequences," the point is, there haven't been any, and nothing realistic has been postulated.

If you look at roundup ready crops, for example, their genetic mod would be useless to crops that don't use roundup, and wouldn't be carried.

I don't favor GMOs, but I think there are some instances where they could be very beneficial and represent a real step in the right direction.

One example that comes to mind is crops that have been genetically modified to produce essential amino acids in greater than normal levels.

Another might be a rice plant that produces an abundance of vitamins that are hard to come by in 3rd world diets.

You are aware of the rice story, are you not?

1/2 a million kids a year go blind in 3rd world countries because of lack of vitamin A.

Golden rice - a GMO - provides excess vitamin A.

1/2 million kids a year are blind.

If you could, say, save 10% of them from that fate with a GMO, wouldn't you be interested in doing that? That's be 10 million kids in a century who were saved from blindness?

Or should we say "f--k 'em" because of a 1 page hit piece?

[manu]

As far as ghosts, they do exist, and you had better be careful or when you leave this gross body, your soul will be trapped in a suble ghost body.

Folks, you paying attention? This person has the same voting power as me. He thinks I'm going to end up in a "suble ghost body."

Think about it. Who do you want making the rational calls?

As far as DNA or RNA, the scientists may have some theory but that is all. They will change that theory every few years.

Really? DNA is a theory is it? And it changes?
Why don't you just admit you have zero comprehension of genetics?

First, you don't have to worry about me voting. I knew what a scam that was before I was 18. It's a one party system for your information. Yes, the scientists change their theory. On almost everything. They admit themselves that they don't know what 98% of the DNA is for or about. So you are going to trust them when they say that GMcrops won't be harmful. How would they know? I may not know much about genetics but I do know something about life. You may know .001 % about genetics but less than that about life.

[smallpoxgirl]

Yes, the scientists change their theory. On almost everything. They admit themselves that they don't know what 98% of the DNA is for or about. So you are going to trust them when they say that GMcrops won't be harmful. How would they know?

Besides that even is the way that the integrase enzymes work. You don't get a choice about where you insert the new genes. They're just kind of randomly inserted into the DNA. It's sort of like just dropping a piece of computer code randomly into a larger program and expecting it to work.

[rattleshirt]

I don't know where to look for the article but there is ongoing research here in Indiana on the effects on Bt corn on streamlife and nontarget insects. So far it looks pretty bad.

[smallpoxgirl]

Another might be a rice plant that produces an abundance of vitamins that are hard to come by in 3rd world diets.

You are aware of the rice story, are you not?

The catastrophe of pushing people off the land in favor of mega plantations of junk food like rice can't be repaired by switching to mega-plantations of genetically modified junk food.

[Schmuto]

Another might be a rice plant that produces an abundance of vitamins that are hard to come by in 3rd world diets.

You are aware of the rice story, are you not?

The catastrophe of pushing people off the land in favor of mega plantations of junk food like rice can't be repaired by switching to mega-plantations of genetically modified junk food.

Not sure what you mean here.

There are a billion people in India and a billion more in China and a billion more in other parts of Asia and Africa who similarly depend on rice.

Rice is high carb, low everything else.

1. They were living on a high rice diet for many hundreds of years before modern agriculture.

2. They were nutrient deficient for many years before modern agriculture.

What do you want to do?

Have them plants peas, green beans, and spinach?

Great, except those have close to zero calories.

If you want to feed a billion people, you've got to start with calories.

[smallpoxgirl]

Rice is high carb, low everything else.

So is cotton candy. Grains are junk food.

1. They were living on a high rice diet for many hundreds of years before modern agriculture.
...
Have them plants peas, green beans, and spinach?

Subsistence farmers eat a variety of foods both plant and animal. The green revolution pushed those people all off the land and converted it all to huge plantations of a couple of varieties of petrochemically cultivated junk food crops. The frankenfood revolution will make that worse not better.

[Schmuto]

Rice is high carb, low everything else.

So is cotton candy. Grains are junk food.

Well, where do you recommend that people get their calories?
After Carbohydrates come Fats then protein.

Fats and protein come substantially from animal products.

If you believe that 3rd worlders eat a lot of meat, I'd say you should take a trip to China.

My buddy was there a year ago. The first place they took him to didn't have meat on the menu.

They eat bugs. Big ones.

They eat chicken feet.

Point is, it's frankly bizarre for you to say grains are "junk" food. Grains are grains.

Complex carbohydrates, in the right amounts, can part of an extremely healthy diet.

Sugar can be too.

What makes something "junk" is more a matter of how much is consumed.

Rice and Beans is a helluva decent diet.

Please enlighten me - what would be a good diet?

Fillet Mignon and Greens?

1. They were living on a high rice diet for many hundreds of years before modern agriculture.
...
Have them plants peas, green beans, and spinach?

Subsistence farmers eat a variety of foods both plant and animal. The green revolution pushed those people all off the land and converted it all to huge plantations of a couple of varieties of petrochemically cultivated junk food crops. The frankenfood revolution will make that worse not better.[/quote]

Not sure what to say.

The Green Revolution, good or bad, has improved the lives of many more people than it has hurt, and particularly in a place like China.

But no worries, SPG, we'll be back to the subsistence thing soon enough.

[smallpoxgirl]

Please enlighten me - what would be a good diet?

I'd take bugs and chicken feet over rice and beans any day. At least bugs have got some decent nutrients in them. Rice and beans is mass produced crap food. If you're trying to create the largest possible human population without any regard for their health, that's about the only reason I can think to feed people grain. Personally I think it's a pretty sick game.

People need protein, vegetables, fruit, and fats. Starch and refined sugars have no business in a human diet.

The Green Revolution, good or bad, has improved the lives of many more people than it has hurt, and particularly in a place like China.

What Monsanto brochure did you read that off of?

[outcast]

Quote:
The Green Revolution, good or bad, has improved the lives of many more people than it has hurt, and particularly in a place like China.


What Monsanto brochure did you read that off of?

I'm going to have to agree with him on this one. I for one didn't read any brochures, all I need to do is look around and see plenty of food for everyone and not having people starving to death to know that the Green Revolution was a good thing.

Starch and refined sugars have no business in a human diet.

Starch is naturally found in potatoes and rice, people have been eating that for thousands of years.

[smallpoxgirl]

all I need to do is look around and see plenty of food for everyone and not having people starving to death to know that the Green Revolution was a good thing.

Really? Nobody starves to death in India now?

Starch and refined sugars have no business in a human diet.

Starch is naturally found in potatoes and rice, people have been eating that for thousands of years.

A couple of thousand years is a quite a brief period in the history of a species. The humans that have eaten those things have suffered ill health as a result. As those "foods" have taken over a greater and greater portion of our diet, the health effects have intensified. The archetypal 12 year old doritos muncher with type II diabetes is the inevitable end result.