My cousins are farmer and when they have to buy special GM tomatoes (They're only small scale). If you buy the seeds it costs you 100 per bag but the plants you get cant reproduce. If you want to buy the ones that can it costs 60000 for a bag :shock:.
Well that doesn't surprise me at all. I can see a possible future day when industrialised societies collapse where pure organic seeds may replace gold and silver as the best currency for bartering for goods and services.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
Lol. Well for your information the link was pointless, I'm not defending pumping animals full of growth hormone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auron
Pumping animals full of growth hormone is GM. My main point is that some GM is complete garbage, but some of it isn't regulated as strictly as in other states. I agree with with you that it does have some beneficial uses...but when it gets monopolized by companies and our choices limited to the point where individual farmers can no longer make a living due to paying for patented items, then it gets silly. Of course GM =/= corrupt corporations, but they're the people who are running it and running everyone else out of business because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I don't have a problem with GMO's if they're safe, but it's hard to support them when the people who are pushing for advancements are the same people who want to monopolize food.
Okay. Well I was just talking about actual GM, not corrupt business practices, which are of course immoral and should be totally decoupled from any discussion about the actual facts of GM itself, because misinformation about GM is causing solutions to serious problems to be withheld.
Roger that....I completely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
If I feed someone a mixture of cyanide and vitamin C, does that mean I then get to claim vitamin C is really bad for you? I mean, look, it clearly kills you!
And to echo what Xei has been saying, just because the law currently supports companies engaging in unethical business practices (something I completely disagree with) that doesn't make the technology inherently bad.
The fact is, not only has genetic modification been occurring for thousands of years by other mechanisms - modern 'natural' crops give vastly superior yields to their original counterparts - but it has the potential to help a very large portion of the world. Whether that potential is ever realised is another matter entirely.
The problem with these discussions are that they're invariably presented as "GM food is bad for you", not "This strain, brought about by GM, is bad for you". They always try to present it as if the process of gene modification itself invariably leads to dangerous food, which is clearly not true. It's the same kind of thinking that makes people say stuff like "Synthetic chemicals are bad for you".
Usually as a result of the media causing a panic and getting the idiot masses to believe it's all Frankenstein science.
What's especially ironic is that people will readily eat products of plant grafting which is far more like Frankenstein's monster than genetic modification could hope to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auron
The companies can argue that it does not count as a monopoly, using screwed up logic. They can say "this typr of tomato was invented by us, but you could still grow the other kinds of tomatos." On one level that is true, but as I mentioned about all of our crops being modified into tetraploid crops, it becomes impossable to compete against the new crop. Wild tomatoe stains made small tomatoes the size of golf balls; the tetraploids could be the size of an orange; how could anyone compete with that? It is like allowing steriod use in sports. You can say 'hey, you can choose not to take them" but if you allow it, then the 'natural' athletes will not be able to compete.
I see no good answer. The companies would not invent these amazing new crops, if they could not get a patent. But, if the new crop is good enough, no one can continue to grow the older crop and survive; so that does make it a monoploy.
You guys do realize that the one of the most popular methods for GM plants is to use a virus to literally infect the cells with foreign dna? The virus is replicated along with the plant. Then we eat it. What are the effects? The producers of GM seed don't even know, they'd rather test it on you to find out.
Food has never been so alien to the human body.
A huge health problem with GM plants is why they are modified to begin. While supporters love to say "larger yields!" thats not the whole truth. The real truth is they wanted to create plants that could absorb as much pesticide and toxins as possible without damage to the plants. The whole idea is, if the plant can survive a ton of pesticides then they can gas the field 24/7 and kill every freakin bug.
Its working. GM plants are doing a great job absorbing the toxins while staying alive.
The toxins stay in the plants system. Then you eat the plant, the virus infecting dna and toxins. To argue that these toxins are safe to eat is completely ridiculous and ignorant. There is no argument that these toxins are safe. Its plain and evident on the freaking labels of these pesticides. Farmers have to wear hazmat suits while handling these dangerous toxins. Gardners using liquid versions have to wear gloves. Failure to do so leads to all sorts of diseases. ITS ON THE LABEL. Dont drink the stuff!
Thousands of farmers can't have children as a direct result of the toxins they get into everyday. Small towns near these farms - where the farms pesticides and toxins flow into the water supply - have witnessed a reduction in the number of male children being born. Governments have taken this seriously and several countries have already banned the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers.
We know that these certain pesticides and fertilizers are bad to the human body. We know that GM plants are modified to be able to take on large quantities of both. And we know that GM plants keep these toxins in their system at a significantly higher rate than non-gm plants.
Scientists know this means disease for human beings. Theres just no way around that.
The only reason why just "correlation" isnt because the science behind it is weak..no the science is strong. The reason why its "correlation" is becuase the scientists dont have any control of the situation!! Literally, they've got NO CONTROLS. In the US, GM food doesn't have to be labeled. Without this labeleing, its just "correlation" and the GM companies can get away with anything.
The next time you purchase conventionally grown produce, ask yourself "Does the label inform me whether or not its a GM using systemic pesticides?". And if you become sick, how can you ever know it was the food?
Again, this is an argument against evil business practices, not GM.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Wrong. This is not "one of the most popular methods". Use of viral vectors is increasing but there are several other techniques, and the technique is in its infancy. Oh and good use of loaded language too. I shouldn't have expected any less. Hint: it's not an infection which by definition causes harm.Quote:
You guys do realize that the one of the most popular methods for GM plants is to use a virus to literally infect the cells with foreign dna?
Ooooh, scary. Aside from the fact that it's not infectious at this point, you'll also eat actual infectious DNA every single time you take a bit to eat due to all the microorganisms on your skin, on your food, and in the air. Have fun eating in future!Quote:
the virus infecting dna
Nonsense as usual. Aside from the fact that many genes that are introduced are already consumed in some form, GM products have to go through extensive testing to demonstrate their safety.Quote:
What are the effects? The producers of GM seed don't even know, they'd rather test it on you to find out.
*sigh*Quote:
The real truth is they wanted to create plants that could absorb as much pesticide and toxins as possible without damage to the plants. The whole idea is, if the plant can survive a ton of pesticides then they can gas the field 24/7 and kill every freakin bug.
Do you have any idea how organisms deal with toxic substances? No of course not, I shouldn't expect you to know some fairly basic biology should I? Allow me to enlighten you.
There are several mechanisms:
1) Resistance to absorption: the species cannot absorb the substance due to changes in the cell structure or environment. If this occurs in the roots for example, it won't even enter the organism.
2) Resistance to the substance itself: changes occur such that it no longer has the effect it used to.
3) Denaturing: creating chemicals that bind to it to render it inert, or creating a chemical environment that renders it inert.
4) Destruction: the species creates enzymes to destroy the toxin
5) Storage: the species stores the substance within its cells. An example is a salt-tolerant plant which will store the excess salt within its cells.
6) Excretion: the substance can more readily be removed preventing its toxic effects from becoming an issue
Most of these would render the plant perfectly safe for consumption because the chemicals you complain about are not present. It's not as if say, Glyphosate is being stored in every cell and humans get a massive dose of it when they eat that carrot. It would not be allowed to be sold if it had that level of chemicals in.
Yes, because in my country this is required by law. If you don't like the lack of this in your country, lobby to get the law changed. I'm guessing that ignorantly bitching about a topic you have barely any understanding of is much easier however.Quote:
The next time you purchase conventionally grown produce, ask yourself "Does the label inform me whether or not its a GM using systemic pesticides?"
And half of your nonsensical rambling is about business practices not science.
Please keep the debate within the parameters of forum rules, i.e. - do not insult members with abusive language.
HahhaahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by melanieb
This information I learned from my horticulture class. GM food is dangerous when used in combination with systemic pesticides. Which is why the terminology systemic pesticides even exists in the horticulture world - because it goes into the plants system and traces of the chemicals stay in the plant long after harvesting. While we're talking about trace amounts it still adds up after years of consumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
It's pretty delusional to think GM is about science. Its always been about the money.Quote:
And half of your nonsensical rambling is about business practices not science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
That is why I did not go into to GM science, even though it was my first choice. I loved the science and came up with some ideas for experiments, but in the end I realized that commercial gain, would always be the single driving force. I would have been forced to try and make fatter pigs or reduced gluten wheat, or some other money based idea (I just made up the wheat one).
You can't separate the two, thats the problem! Theres all these pro arguments that GM is going to save the world and end starvation. Come on, its a front. GM is big business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
However the argument against the consumption of GM has to do with
1. the actual process of genetically modifying plants introduces organisms that are foreign to the human diet and therefore not necessarily compatible with the human being. This is the part still being researched
2. GM goes hand in hand with "round up ready" mutants. The systemic pesticides remain in the plant and end up in you.
That said, the ethical practices of GM corporations are enough to boycott them even if their plants were safe to eat
You can't separate the two. That's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Correct. Also, some people have used chemistry to create deadly weapons. It's big business. Chemistry is a front, including all products of chemistry such as medicine. I am being facetious.Quote:
Theres all these pro arguments that GM is going to save the world and end starvation. Come on, its a front. GM is big business.
I take it from this that you don't eat any kind of meat, dairy, fruit and veg, or cereals?Quote:
1. the actual process of genetically modifying plants introduces organisms that are foreign to the human diet and therefore not necessarily compatible with the human being. This is the part still being researched
The problem isn't genetically modified food, it's pesticides. I haven't even read the article in the OP and I'm fairly certain it was the pesticides that caused most of the harm.
While we're on the topic of pesticides, a pretty cool technology that's being developed right now is automated weed killers that use hot organic oil. I think this is the kind of technology we should develop if we want better crop yields, along with GM that doesn't involve harmful pesticides (although non-harmful genetic modifications that increase resistance to insects and whatnot are good as well).
Link: Can weed-seeking robots replace planet-killing herbicides?, Agricultural robots may reduce costs of organic produce | KurzweilAI
You lack knowledge in basic biology. I won't say I know a lot, but even with entry level biology, I know that everything you are saying is wrong, and is most likely just some 'science' you figured out while having a bowel movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
You're not missing much. The article was completely biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGames
The strange thing is...there really isn't much info in basic biology on the subject (at least what I was taught). I mean, even in microbiology, we learned about the PCR process to produce insulin, and transgenic plants, but all together (that and my biology class) there were only a few pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
That aside, it's difficult to find any hard unbiased scientific evidence that GMO's are "really really bad". Now the cynic in me says, "there has to be something wrong with it", due to the relative ease that all of this stuff got approved by the FDA, and the actual process of what some of the GMO plants do (secreting toxins that bugs wont eat). Of course the toxins are found in other plants, but they're generally found in dicots that people and most bugs don't eat.
Until the day arrives when there is actual scientific proof to back up what I may personally feel about certain GMO's...it will always be a useless argument.
It's not a matter of GMO or not, it's just the general way Juroara talks about the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auron
the actual process of genetically modifying plants introduces organisms that are foreign to the human diet and therefore not necessarily compatible with the human being.
Really? Really?
lol, what are you trying to say? Even vegans who depend on soy support monsanto. You can't avoid it in the states because theres no law that gm has to be labeled and gm has destroyed so many family farms. Its a monopoly of food no matter what your diet is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
As soon as I get a patch of dirt im growing my own food
no, not good enoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
I need you to explain why Im wrong. Systemic pesticides is an actual technical term in horticulture. Farmers make a choice whether to use a pesticide that stays in the plants system or a pesticide that only sits on top of the leaves and washes with rain. (both equally bad) Viruses have been used to inject-infect plant cells with foreign dna. How does any of that go against biology? Viruses already do that....
edit: Here is an example of a gm method that has people alarmed
"Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. "
People are alarmed by this mixture of dna, as far as I understand, never before seen in nature or in the human diet in this manner. Why does eating something we've never eaten before sound so scary to people? Because eating things that was never a part of our evolutionary diet causes diet related diseases. Even if its just a simple allergy.
Whats the result of eating plants mixed with non-plant dna? Dont pompously lie to me and pretend you know exactly what this means, no one really knows what it means. In the US, the FDA allows companies to test on the populace. And the poppulace has no right to know. GM companies have also proven they had no real understanding of how it would affect the wilderness. The after effects of gm are UNKNOWN.
Im NOT saying that eating plants modified in this way is bad for you. What I am saying is people have legitimate reasons to be skeptical of eating something thats a complete bastardization of a natural process
Take the bees for example.
Farmers decided it was smart to control the insemination process. They take the queen bee, stradle her and rape her with needle as she squirms and squirms trying to break free. Intuition tells us this is obviously wrong. It takes a while for the left brain to figure out why it doesnt sit well with the right.
Whats the real scientific verdict of controlling who the queen bee mates with?
The scientific verdict is - its going horribly wrong.
Its not like queen bees were having trouble having sex! They were mating with up to 20 on a single flight. This created a genetic diversity keeping the bee population healthy.
But after years of controlling the bee genes, we've bred weak, sickly bees. Entire colonies die to something they should have had immunity for. In otherwords, we were pretty absurd and stupid in thinking we should control bee sex.
Yes, there is a real genuis behind the science of genetic modification. But like bees, theres complete absurdity in why we were modifying genes to begin with. Farmers wanted their plants to be free from all pests. But the problem wasnt in the plants genes, the problem was monoculture was a paradise for pests. Farmers wanted bigger and better crops. But the problem wasn't in the plants genes, the problem was the soil sucked.
Statistics show that organic farming DOES NOT produce more crops than conventional farming. This has ironically been used to argue that organic is not any better than conventional, with all its pesticides and expensive (very expensive for the farmers) gms. But its the other way around!
Organic came first. This means that conventional farming with all of its super gm seeds, are NOT producing higher yields or better crops.