genetically modified produce.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by leopold, Jan 1, 2010.

  1. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Is there a reason you cannot discuss this with respect. I never asserted that those were the only sites or sources of information I had. I posted those links specifically to counter the notion that only uniformed people disagree with the position you hold. To show that scientists also held these beliefs and no small number. It was a specific response on a specific issue which you have now used to score emotional points and add nothing to the thread.

    Is this an example of what you call evidence of assertions? Can you see why it was poor evidence?

    You posted one link to one scientist. Does that now mean you only got information from one source?

    Seriously, can you discuss this in a respectful manner?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Why not simply regulate the companies instead of banning a technology that could save millions of lives?

    This is a very good example of how wrong you are, making strains of anthrax is not a tool, the equipment to genetically modify and grow anthrax are "tools" such tools are used in everything from bioweapons labs to beer breweries to the fermenters that make GM yeast which produces all the world's supply of human insulin for diabetics, etc.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    We cannot regulate the companies now and they are in a large part responsible for that. The precautionary principle has been thrown out of the window.


    The anthrax is a tool used in a variety of experiments and it is a tool to be used in war by some people. Sorry. If you google therapeutic uses of anthrax you will see it is considered a tool. I would give you direct link, but it is a power point display. Probably a number of sites will come up.

    And genetically modified products are also being conceived of as tools.

    Potentially dangerous products and processes need to be regulated. I do not think this is case right now. Money rules. Get regulation in line, then allow the products.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Of course we can still regulate the compainies its not like the whole world is the USA.

    Forgive me, technology is a better descriptor than tool. Anthrax is not a technology, GM is. I can't think of vary many technologies that are ban, maybe bioweapons.

    I'm all for regulations, but your asking to ban the whole thing.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    We're better off banning it than allowing unregulated proliferation and use of it.
     
  9. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Let's just say one thing. GM food will never be able to feed the world. Why?
    Because the output of the invested ingredients on field is always less than 100%, and they have hpoed to be at least 300%. Well, wrong.
    Not to mention that anything today is healthy at all. Chemical industries combined with GM food is all poison, that's why people our immunity systems are so weak, unless they are able to adapt.
     
  10. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    I'm not quite sure what you mean here. There are regulatory problems around the world in relation to these and other companies. To a degree I consider unsafe.

    No, there aren't many or perhaps even any that are totally banned. Nevertheless I think a moratorium - perhaps that's a more positive word - would be a rational, cautious response in this case. It might be in other cases as well.

    Until such time that the companies actually are regulated in a democratic fashion or really representative fashion, yes.

    By the way. Thank you for responding to my arguments with arguments and not ad homs. I mean that seriously in the context of this thread.
     
  11. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,816
    No.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is entirely typical of the agenda-laden, ill-informed, emotive and misleading nonsense that I was talking about, along with other deliberately emotive phrases like “Franken-food”.

    It is NOT an "incredibly dangerous tool". That's simply a rubbish statement. In fact, it’s an entirely standard, common, everyday, tried-and-tested tool. I'm a geneticist and molecular biologist - I know.
     
  12. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,816
    No. I don’t rely on the internet when it comes to this subject. I listen to actual academic scientists doing research on the topic (no, not those employed by the companies but university-employed agricultural scientists whom I know personally), and I listen to my own knowledge of genetics and molecule biology (in which a have a PhD and several years of subsequent research expertise). Both of these things tell me that most of the anti-GM arguments are a load of BS put forward by people who don’t understand what they’re talking about.


    What you posted was nonsense. One was some sort of dubious “institute” and the other was pure journalism. They are biased, selective and inaccurate. If you want to be taken seriously, give us some science. Give us some peer-reviewed published scientific research, not journalistic fluff pieces.

    Mind you, there is genuine science out there that indicates potential risks in the use of GM crops. There are potential risks with all new technology and no one (who knows what they are talking about) would say otherwise. As with all technology, we assess the risks and weigh the benefits using the consensus scientific opinion. The consensus opinion says it will be okay.

    Of course, I’m sure you’d like to suggest that the majority of scientists argue against the use of the technology. But that’s merely your daydream. You can’t prove it because it’s not true.

    I’ll give you one quick example. Here’s some research that indicates that GM rice will not spread to non-GM rice using only a small spatial separation.

     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  13. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    My brother was a genetics and microbiology guy too (works in another field now), and said the dangers of GM foods were very clear and obvious. He gave me a ton of examples once. I'll see if he'll send them to me again.

    Until then, enjoy these:
    http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=93
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai
     
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    There will always be regulatory problems, if you can handle that it will be a constant war between corporations why don't you advocate a totally different economic model?

    Changing the word does not change the effect. by the way what warrants such a moratorium, what are the chances of detriment verse the chances of benefit?

    So companies should have no lobbying forces?
     
  15. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    To me it is more than problems, but rather that there is a fundamental breach of oversight. If you have revolving door positions between regulatory bodies and industry and other influence, via lobbying for example, that undermines representative control, the system cannot do what it is meant to do. Democracy is undermined at a fundamental not a detail level.

    I could pass that question back to you. We are both working with our intuitions. We hear a lot about what GM foods can or will do, but I don't see enough evidence that it is doing it or that the corporations are in fact that interested in feeding the poor. It is not clear to me either that the kinds of agriculture they are fostering - where farmers essentially lease seeds and must also then subscribe to herbicides, for example, that go with the seeds - are really intended to keep soil healthy long term, set up situations where the world's poor are creating crops to eat - rather than specialized food products for the First World, or whether long term affects on ecosystems and people are really prioritized at all.
    Lobbying is only part of the problem, but it is a part of that problem. The problems with undue, non-democratic influence in this industry concern me more than with other industries. In principle I am against the current increasing oligharhic trends in general. In practice I am more likely to protest, as here, in relation to specific industries whose influence I consider dangerous.
     
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Well then suggest your alternative government model.

    There are many possible uses for GM plants, for example GM plants could produce life saving pharmaceuticals. Corporations are interested in selling a product that will provide farmers increased yield, thus the farmers will buy it because they get more profit, the total effect would be to increase world food production.

    valid concerns but this is not a problem limited to GM foods, rather your problem is with how corporations are implementing the technology, what you need to advocate is for the discontinuation of herbicide resistant plants packaged with herbicides due to violation of antitrust laws.

    Again the oligarhy is a different problem, you need to attack that rather then its GM technology simply because it abuses GM technology, its like attacking a symptom of a disease rather then its cause.
     
  17. Mandana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    In my opinion and experience, "PEOPLE" are not always responsible for how developed their countries are.Sometimes people are doing their best and other factors get in the way.In many cases its not "their own choice".Imagine growing crops on sahara,do you think that people living in the area are sitting on a huge amount of arable land?And "Africa" is not a country to consider that other areas will compensate for it.I understand people being hungry sitting on deserts.
     
  18. Lhuna Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Genetically modified production is damaging the DNA, isn't it? At least, it changes the genetical code. So it's bad for health. I prefer simple food but now genetically modified production is everywhere. This situation solves the problem of lack of food but doesn't solve the problem of people's health.
     
  19. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    "Bad for heath?" That's nothing but an assumption at this point - just like it was way back when everyone thought that tomatoes were poisonous.
     
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,428
    africa and asia were doing just fine precolonialism
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523

    yeah they also had populations a fraction of what they have today.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The fact that the people actually doing this stuff don't recognize the risks involved does not make these techniques safer in application.

    At one time we were facing a large body of superbly expert physicists, leaders in the field, who were actively advocating the use of plutonium fission reactors to blow subway tunnels between New York and LA, create deep water ports in Alaska, and power airplanes in transcontinental flights.

    Later, we were the guinea pigs of the experiments of a large body of superbly expert organic chemists who gave us modified trans fats in most of our food.

    Now yet another body of experts is telling us they know what they are doing,

    as they use techniques invented less than a generation ago to tinker with the basic genetics of self-reproductive organisms,

    organisms not yet thoroughly studied in their ordinary environment,

    which they plan to broadcast into the as yet all but unstudied general environment we depend on,

    and replace much of a ten thousand year old agricultural base we depend on

    and a hugely complex food economy we depend on,

    with stuff invented less than ten years ago,

    under no oversight but that of corporations whose profits are riding on them, and who face little or no liability for unpredicted consequences.
    There was no such time. People have been eating tomatoes since before they adapted them to agriculture.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Its like when the townfolk go searching for vampires. The carry pitchforks and make a lot of noise, if you can get them to just go home and read a comic book you are ahead of the game but they will still believe in vampires. Why? because they're simpltons.
     

Share This Page