GM crops are awesome. Faith-based environmentalists disagree

[patches70]

Hey, we'll have a choice. GM foods or Soylent Green! We'll also have Soylent Red, Soylent Blue. Lots of choices. We might look back at these times and think- "That was the good ole days".

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Why do I even bother...

-TG

Is everything black or white? Or are there shades of grey?

Do you think GM crops are 100% safe --over time? What you don't like about what I'm saying? Be specific.

No. But not for the reasons you're thinking. The basic idea of GMO crops is that you take bacteria which can insert plasmids into a plant cell; you select your desired sequence of genes from a donor and competent bacteria can insert it into the plant (future applications in human biochemistry as well-- Bioshock, anyone?). The plant's DNA/RNA protein synthesis function can read this like any other chromosomal DNA and produce proteins. So all it's doing is adding one more set of proteins that will produce whatever you want (like vitamin A in Golden Rice).

GMOs can be dangerous in the same sense that any new biotech stuff can be; the ability to engineer lethal components. If somebody had the know-how and resources, you could engineer pretty much anything you ever needed. That's my biggest concern with GMOs.

-TG

[nietzsche]

Why do I even bother...

-TG

Is everything black or white? Or are there shades of grey?

Do you think GM crops are 100% safe --over time? What you don't like about what I'm saying? Be specific.

No. But not for the reasons you're thinking. The basic idea of GMO crops is that you take bacteria which can insert plasmids into a plant cell; you select your desired sequence of genes from a donor and competent bacteria can insert it into the plant (future applications in human biochemistry as well-- Bioshock, anyone?). The plant's DNA/RNA protein synthesis function can read this like any other chromosomal DNA and produce proteins. So all it's doing is adding one more set of proteins that will produce whatever you want (like vitamin A in Golden Rice).

GMOs can be dangerous in the same sense that any new biotech stuff can be; the ability to engineer lethal components. If somebody had the know-how and resources, you could engineer pretty much anything you ever needed. That's my biggest concern with GMOs.

-TG

So we understand perfectly how the human body works? Is it possible that a minute change in what we eat could over time affect us in a manner which we don't understand right now?

I am just asking for a possibility, if I'm wrong, if you say you are 100% sure that such possibility doesn't exist I'll give you the victory in this argument.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Why do I even bother...

-TG

Is everything black or white? Or are there shades of grey?

Do you think GM crops are 100% safe --over time? What you don't like about what I'm saying? Be specific.

No. But not for the reasons you're thinking. The basic idea of GMO crops is that you take bacteria which can insert plasmids into a plant cell; you select your desired sequence of genes from a donor and competent bacteria can insert it into the plant (future applications in human biochemistry as well-- Bioshock, anyone?). The plant's DNA/RNA protein synthesis function can read this like any other chromosomal DNA and produce proteins. So all it's doing is adding one more set of proteins that will produce whatever you want (like vitamin A in Golden Rice).

GMOs can be dangerous in the same sense that any new biotech stuff can be; the ability to engineer lethal components. If somebody had the know-how and resources, you could engineer pretty much anything you ever needed. That's my biggest concern with GMOs.

-TG

So we understand perfectly how the human body works? Is it possible that a minute change in what we eat could over time affect us in a manner which we don't understand right now?

I am just asking for a possibility, if I'm wrong, if you say you are 100% sure that such possibility doesn't exist I'll give you the victory in this argument.

Bread has carbs. Meat has protein. Let's assume you ate these separately for 1 year. You then get the brilliant idea to put the slice of meat between two pieces of bread. Are you changing anything?

In the case of the Golden Rice, all you're doing is adding the ability of rice crops to synthesize vitamin A (a deficiency of which kills hundreds of thousands of children every year).

And no, we don't understand perfectly how any biological organism works. But if you're going to argue against GMOs because of this, you should argue against pretty much anything since the inception of agriculture, or the industrial revolution. The invention of automobiles alone I'm sure had led to the increase in lung cancer rates through emissions inhalation. But I'd rather take precautions and that small risk than have to walk 20 miles every day. See where I'm getting at?

-TG

[nietzsche]

Why do I even bother...

-TG

Is everything black or white? Or are there shades of grey?

Do you think GM crops are 100% safe --over time? What you don't like about what I'm saying? Be specific.

No. But not for the reasons you're thinking. The basic idea of GMO crops is that you take bacteria which can insert plasmids into a plant cell; you select your desired sequence of genes from a donor and competent bacteria can insert it into the plant (future applications in human biochemistry as well-- Bioshock, anyone?). The plant's DNA/RNA protein synthesis function can read this like any other chromosomal DNA and produce proteins. So all it's doing is adding one more set of proteins that will produce whatever you want (like vitamin A in Golden Rice).

GMOs can be dangerous in the same sense that any new biotech stuff can be; the ability to engineer lethal components. If somebody had the know-how and resources, you could engineer pretty much anything you ever needed. That's my biggest concern with GMOs.

-TG

So we understand perfectly how the human body works? Is it possible that a minute change in what we eat could over time affect us in a manner which we don't understand right now?

I am just asking for a possibility, if I'm wrong, if you say you are 100% sure that such possibility doesn't exist I'll give you the victory in this argument.

Bread has carbs. Meat has protein. Let's assume you ate these separately for 1 year. You then get the brilliant idea to put the slice of meat between two pieces of bread. Are you changing anything?

In the case of the Golden Rice, all you're doing is adding the ability of rice crops to synthesize vitamin A (a deficiency of which kills hundreds of thousands of children every year).

And no, we don't understand perfectly how any biological organism works. But if you're going to argue against GMOs because of this, you should argue against pretty much anything since the inception of agriculture, or the industrial revolution. The invention of automobiles alone I'm sure had led to the increase in lung cancer rates through emissions inhalation. But I'd rather take precautions and that small risk than have to walk 20 miles every day. See where I'm getting at?

-TG

I already posted conceding your last point. I am aware that it's better to have the possibility of an allergy in 10 years than to be starving now.

What you seem to have very clear is that life is very simple, "all you're doing is adding the ability of rice crops to synthesize vitamin A". There is where I disagree with you. I'd stick to what is known to work, specially in something with something as delicate as what we put in our body, directly, every day.

Perhaps your example, Golden Rice, is the safest, but there are more, and there have been more, and there will be even much more. I'll wait 20 years until there are enough metastudies on safety.

[Lootifer]

So long as it remains transparent, both in terms of academic studies and with product labelling, I dont think you need to worry Niet. As you say, just wait twenty years, its your choice.

There is a risk with any new tech, but as long as it stays free of corruption we have nothing to worry about imo.

[nietzsche]

So long as it remains transparent, both in terms of academic studies and with product labelling, I dont think you need to worry Niet. As you say, just wait twenty years, its your choice.

There is a risk with any new tech, but as long as it stays free of corruption we have nothing to worry about imo.

Except that it rarely stays that way. Most likely the first to know about dangers are the companies and they will deal with it in their own way. They don't want scandals.

And yes, it's the same with new techs I'm aware, except this things you eat every way. In your body they go every day. In numbers this has the possibility of harming more than meds, because of the number of people. You just need 1 GMO product to end up being harmful little by little to have dramatic consequences.

What about the epidemic of diabetis? Governments might go broke because we didn't know that eating all that much baked goods will make us sick. Not saying it's the same, but it's similar.

[Qwert]

In mine country are forbidden GMO crops.
We dont need GMo, because Vojvodina ( find these in Wikipedia) are South Part of PAnonian plain, and have 21506 km square.
75 % of territory cover chernozem soil type(top 1 soil in earth for agriculture). For example USA have 18 % arable land.(and its not chernozem)

With these land we could produce health food.

[Nola_Lifer]

I don't understand why we need GM crops. We have been growing and cultivating food for thousands of years why do we need to f*ck with it?

I don't know much about GM crops but this is a pretty narrow-viewed way to look at this. Science and tech are all about improving our lives to increase overall happiness. If we all just sat around and were contented with the way things are we'd still try to cure cancer with leeches and would only be able to listen to music if we attended concerts at opera houses and whatnot.

Big difference between curing cancers and growing food.

Edit: By the way, I haven't been able to find out if this fellow is an actual farmer or not. Here is some debunk material for you. http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/01/shou ... onent.html

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_pape ... chool.html

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't understand why we need GM crops. We have been growing and cultivating food for thousands of years why do we need to f*ck with it?

I don't know much about GM crops but this is a pretty narrow-viewed way to look at this. Science and tech are all about improving our lives to increase overall happiness. If we all just sat around and were contented with the way things are we'd still try to cure cancer with leeches and would only be able to listen to music if we attended concerts at opera houses and whatnot.

Big difference between curing cancers and growing food.

Edit: By the way, I haven't been able to find out if this fellow is an actual farmer or not. Here is some debunk material for you. http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/01/shou ... onent.html

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_pape ... chool.html

So, there's two ways to debunk myths.

One is to merely assert claims without referencing materials, and the other way is to counter claims while referencing the materials. By 'materials', I mean the academic articles which discuss the methods and whatever used in order to determine if X affects Y in some certain manner (e.g. Bt corn and pesticide use).

The former can make great blogs and is useful as rhetoric, yet the latter is the method preferred by scientific journals.

[AAFitz]

Big difference between curing cancers and growing food.

Actually, there isn't.

Though prevention is really the goal.

[AAFitz]

It's a question of ideology and sustainability. I believe in a close, comfortable, tolerant community able to meet its needs independently while coexisting with the greater environment and the greater community to move forward and meet its wants.

I don't think we should give all of our money, resources and admiration to starbucks. GM foods and the idea behind them just doesn't fit my world view. I don't think we will ever tame nature and if we do, we will regret it.

We've been taming nature for about.... 10,000 years? (whenever the domestication of animals and/or agriculture began),

so... what's the problem?

I really hope you aren't suggesting, that we have not increased health risks with some of our 'taming' of nature.

[Nola_Lifer]

I don't understand why we need GM crops. We have been growing and cultivating food for thousands of years why do we need to f*ck with it?

I don't know much about GM crops but this is a pretty narrow-viewed way to look at this. Science and tech are all about improving our lives to increase overall happiness. If we all just sat around and were contented with the way things are we'd still try to cure cancer with leeches and would only be able to listen to music if we attended concerts at opera houses and whatnot.

Big difference between curing cancers and growing food.

Edit: By the way, I haven't been able to find out if this fellow is an actual farmer or not. Here is some debunk material for you. http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/01/shou ... onent.html

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_pape ... chool.html

So, there's two ways to debunk myths.

One is to merely assert claims without referencing materials, and the other way is to counter claims while referencing the materials. By 'materials', I mean the academic articles which discuss the methods and whatever used in order to determine if X affects Y in some certain manner (e.g. Bt corn and pesticide use).

The former can make great blogs and is useful as rhetoric, yet the latter is the method preferred by scientific journals.

2nd link has peer reviewed articles at bottom. You didn't read this I guess. And where is Mr Lynas' proof or scientific peer reviewed sources. Or just cause he is anti this and then switches to pro this we should just take his word for it too?

Big difference between curing cancers and growing food.

Actually, there isn't.

Though prevention is really the goal.

Any intelligent person knows you are what you eat, so the healthier you are at eating the better off you are. AOG was implying techniques to cure cancer and techniques of growing food. Cancer kills, food doesn't(Unless it is sprayed with roundup )

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a question of ideology and sustainability. I believe in a close, comfortable, tolerant community able to meet its needs independently while coexisting with the greater environment and the greater community to move forward and meet its wants.

I don't think we should give all of our money, resources and admiration to starbucks. GM foods and the idea behind them just doesn't fit my world view. I don't think we will ever tame nature and if we do, we will regret it.

We've been taming nature for about.... 10,000 years? (whenever the domestication of animals and/or agriculture began),

so... what's the problem?

I really hope you aren't suggesting, that we have not increased health risks with some of our 'taming' of nature.

Increased health risks?

Are health risks higher in the US today or during the 1700s?

Are health risks higher in the world today or during 10,000 BC?

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't understand why we need GM crops. We have been growing and cultivating food for thousands of years why do we need to f*ck with it?

I don't know much about GM crops but this is a pretty narrow-viewed way to look at this. Science and tech are all about improving our lives to increase overall happiness. If we all just sat around and were contented with the way things are we'd still try to cure cancer with leeches and would only be able to listen to music if we attended concerts at opera houses and whatnot.

Big difference between curing cancers and growing food.

Edit: By the way, I haven't been able to find out if this fellow is an actual farmer or not. Here is some debunk material for you. http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/01/shou ... onent.html

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_pape ... chool.html

So, there's two ways to debunk myths.

One is to merely assert claims without referencing materials, and the other way is to counter claims while referencing the materials. By 'materials', I mean the academic articles which discuss the methods and whatever used in order to determine if X affects Y in some certain manner (e.g. Bt corn and pesticide use).

The former can make great blogs and is useful as rhetoric, yet the latter is the method preferred by scientific journals.

2nd link has peer reviewed articles at bottom. You didn't read this I guess. And where is Mr Lynas' proof or scientific peer reviewed sources. Or just cause he is anti this and then switches to pro this we should just take his word for it too?

Perhaps the 2nd link is right about a few minor points, but its nitpicking misses the big picture, and if pesticide X is used in great quantities, but there are no lawsuits because there really is no problem--other than the perceived fears which cannot be substantiated, then why should I care?

Anyway, If Lynas can be believed, then obviously the anti-GM food crowd has substantial flaws in their stance against GM food. Although they may be correct on a few things, in general, they should re-evaluate their position with a good dose of science.

This is good advice.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Any intelligent person knows you are what you eat, so the healthier you are at eating the better off you are. AOG was implying techniques to cure cancer and techniques of growing food. Cancer kills, food doesn't(Unless it is sprayed with roundup )

I don't know about Roundup or its method of activation, but again, the GMOs that are engineered to produce their own Bt toxin cannot harm you. Bt toxin is only converted to poison by bacteria that only reside in the guts of insects.

-TG

[_sabotage_]

I immediately thought sell out as soon as I read the first few lines of the posted article. I'm sorry but there is a lot of contradictory research to compare and just because one guy jumps ship doesn't give him any more credibility to one who has stayed the course.

[Nola_Lifer]

Any intelligent person knows you are what you eat, so the healthier you are at eating the better off you are. AOG was implying techniques to cure cancer and techniques of growing food. Cancer kills, food doesn't(Unless it is sprayed with roundup )

I don't know about Roundup or its method of activation, but again, the GMOs that are engineered to produce their own Bt toxin cannot harm you. Bt toxin is only converted to poison by bacteria that only reside in the guts of insects.

-TG

So the crops are modified to resist roundup, which is an herbicide, so that more roundup can be sprayed onto the plants. BT is a toxin that is meant to destroy pests.

Study on rats fed GM Maize
http://archive.truthout.org/1215091
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

If there wasn't such a big problem with GMO then why are they so worried about labels on them? Do you know why they are arguing against GM food? It isn't some faith based bullshit as the speech suggests but very much founded in science.

[AAFitz]

It's a question of ideology and sustainability. I believe in a close, comfortable, tolerant community able to meet its needs independently while coexisting with the greater environment and the greater community to move forward and meet its wants.

I don't think we should give all of our money, resources and admiration to starbucks. GM foods and the idea behind them just doesn't fit my world view. I don't think we will ever tame nature and if we do, we will regret it.

We've been taming nature for about.... 10,000 years? (whenever the domestication of animals and/or agriculture began),

so... what's the problem?

I really hope you aren't suggesting, that we have not increased health risks with some of our 'taming' of nature.

Increased health risks?

Are health risks higher in the US today or during the 1700s?

Are health risks higher in the world today or during 10,000 BC?

The relevant question, is are there more health risks than there were in 1970?

I love the progress we made over the last 10000 years, but see no reason to stop improving, and start poisoning, simply because its still a net gain.

[BigBallinStalin]

Any intelligent person knows you are what you eat, so the healthier you are at eating the better off you are. AOG was implying techniques to cure cancer and techniques of growing food. Cancer kills, food doesn't(Unless it is sprayed with roundup )

I don't know about Roundup or its method of activation, but again, the GMOs that are engineered to produce their own Bt toxin cannot harm you. Bt toxin is only converted to poison by bacteria that only reside in the guts of insects.

-TG

So the crops are modified to resist roundup, which is an herbicide, so that more roundup can be sprayed onto the plants. BT is a toxin that is meant to destroy pests.

Study on rats fed GM Maize
http://archive.truthout.org/1215091
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

If there wasn't such a big problem with GMO then why are they so worried about labels on them? Do you know why they are arguing against GM food? It isn't some faith based bullshit as the speech suggests but very much founded in science.

So, they can't wash off the herbicide or wait x-amount of days for it to dissipate before it is delivered to the retailers?

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a question of ideology and sustainability. I believe in a close, comfortable, tolerant community able to meet its needs independently while coexisting with the greater environment and the greater community to move forward and meet its wants.

I don't think we should give all of our money, resources and admiration to starbucks. GM foods and the idea behind them just doesn't fit my world view. I don't think we will ever tame nature and if we do, we will regret it.

We've been taming nature for about.... 10,000 years? (whenever the domestication of animals and/or agriculture began),

so... what's the problem?

I really hope you aren't suggesting, that we have not increased health risks with some of our 'taming' of nature.

Increased health risks?

Are health risks higher in the US today or during the 1700s?

Are health risks higher in the world today or during 10,000 BC?

The relevant question, is are there more health risks than there were in 1970?

I love the progress we made over the last 10000 years, but see no reason to stop improving, and start poisoning, simply because its still a net gain.

Sorry, but what's your point here?

[Neoteny]

I'm much more concerned with GM dogs. There's just something not right with pugs.

[Symmetry]

I'm much more concerned with GM dogs. There's just something not right with pugs.

Dog Breeders Issue Massive Recall Of '07 Pugs

This what you had in mind?

[Nola_Lifer]

Let's look at Bald Eagle population. They declined because of DDT. They weren't directly exposed to DDT but their prey were. Rodents that would eat crops or insects that were sprayed would then be hunted by Bald Eagles. This in turn made their egg shells softer causing a decrease in population. Can you wash off DDT if it is being absorbed by the food? Same with pesticides today. They don't just wash off. They are eventually absorbed by the food itself. Would you really want to eat something if you saw some dude do this before hand?