GMO Problems continue

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by river, Dec 20, 2018.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,685
    I ran a great garden for many years when I lived full time in the bush.

    I never used any spray to kill anything.

    I would plant stuff, keep it healthy with good compost and worm water ( run off from my worm farm) the birds and ducks kept the pests in line.

    Also when you have a compost heap and a worm farm you cant wait for weeds to pop up to feed your worms or build your compost.

    I had a couple of ducks in there who also kept bugs in control.

    Was so good to go out in the garden pick a bowl of salad boild some duck eggs and to eat such a healthy meal...or if you felt like a snack just pick this and that.

    I also had fish and yabbies in the dams so it was a wonderful life.... lot more bees because a guy would put his hives out the front of my place when the trees were flowering and that coincided with production times.



    Alex
     
    RainbowSingularity and sculptor like this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,383
    That's not true. None of it.
    Which a moment's thought would have revealed to you: "GMOs" vary as widely as the "Os" they are made from vary - no one would claim that "Os" are safe, eh? -
    - and the genetic modifications are of many quite different kinds, with much different associated risks. There probably is no valid statement of any kind one can make about "GMOs", aside from that they are organisms and some human being has laboratory-manipulated their genetic code in some way.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    or harbour insects that eat the crop
    this has led to mono crop by mass farming method. this has stood the eco system including the food supply tilted up on the edge of a cliff with a wobbly broken wooden leg.
    the moment a strong wind comes along, everything is over the edge.
    butterfly's are dying because they have no where to rest(is one small but significant reality that most people have no idea about).

    human food supply requires insects, bees & butterflys

    but when your a rich narcissistic psychopath surrounded by plastic wrapped slave labour products for your every whim. you really dont care about the other 99.9999% of humans, or other animals, specially not insects plants even less.

    native wild flowers & plants that grow anywhere around or down wind of the crop
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    i did some reading on mange
    turns out guinea fowl are ideal at foraging for ticks in pasture which is the primary cause
    their eggs are not soo desirable for most white bread nuclear family suburbanites...
    they are good for some things, better for others, less for things like pavlovas etc.
    but that doesn't mean you cant have different types.

    is it my imagination or do ducks seem to crap out 1000% more than they eat and everywhere ?

    while i agree with you in principal, there is a knowledgeable difference between the 2 things.
    16yo entitelist privileged rich elite children seeking to flout their individuation as a moral code upon the rest of society as a kick back against their parents are more than happy to decry all things that they find in-congruent to their passing emotional tantrums.

    but if you start your conversation from their perspective as a principal counter point it leaves me wondering how well read you are on the subject & if you spend all your time debating the parts that are sheople distractions for mass consumer consumption at the cost of the real science.
    (not meaning you)soo many _ickheads are always trying to sway the discussion away from the real science its probably the biggest problem for the last 15 years.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2018
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,907
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,685
    No it is not your imagination they crap much more than they eat and no one knows how this is achieved...that is something worthy of research.
    A few hippies in this area gather ticks and sell them to a vet who produces stuff to save dogs from tick bite.
    They sit on a blanket and let the money come to them☺
    Alex
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,962
    Geese sure do. I believe the reason is that their primary diet is grass, and that they aren't able to extract a lot of nutrition from it.
    So they eat a lot and poop a lot, and the poop is not greatly reduced in volume from what they eat.
     
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    fyi non informed
    the GMO debate has 2 distinctly different sides to one side which is deliberately confused by many to serve their own personal agendas.
    1 side is the anti new things side which are anti all forms of manipulation and also promote organic stuff which is a completely different subject.
    They mix in among the Organic community & the anti meat & anti animal products & anti animal use groups.
    They are also mixed in with Vegan groups & vegetarian groups.

    Organic is not anti meat
    Organic is also not anti corn(corn has been selectively bread for thousands of years creating non natural corn types along with selective breeding of pets and other stock animals creating non natural occurring largish groups of animals that would otherwise not have occurred in such large numbers(very complex and highly speculative debate which you probably need the equivalent of a biology or zoology degree to sound faintly sane in discussing)

    2 is the DNA RNA mutating chemicals and forms of mutated DNA strains that cause mutated growth issues.
    Glyphosate is an issue because it has a effect of mutating dna in insects.

    to give you an idea of what the debate is about...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085358/
    separate to those issues is mono culture industrial farming of single item plants which are unable to survive or grow on their own and during the farming process total eradication of all other plants and insects is performed to produce a higher yield.

    to give you a general idea of the debate
    https://www.regenerative.com/magazine/six-problems-monoculture-farming
    Mono culture industrial farming is slowly adapting because they realise it is not a long term secure way to maintain the food supply.

    hopefully that sounds as impartial as possible.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,383
    Yes, really.
    And obviously. It's not a subtle point. There is no such thing as the safety of "GMOs", because GMOs do not universally resemble each other or universally share any key features. The safety of each new GMO is a new matter for investigation.

    Notice that your link, for example, has already narrowed the field to "crops" in its headline. And other than a publication that carefully draws no firm conclusions*, it's a pile of videos.
    Serious arguments are not made by video. This is a science forum - transcript or forget it.

    I will make a couple of guesses, of what's in them: My guess is that if you delve into them, you will find the case further narrowed to one or two exemplary genetic manipulations in about a half dozen plants - that's all we have much real world experience with (glyphosate resistance in soybeans and maize, Bt expression in maize and a couple of other plants, both of them shotgun installations of code into cellular organelles). It's possible they may address, on the side, some of the yeast manipulations, which are much different GMOs carrying much different risks and assurances.

    Regardless: No conclusions about the safety of "GMOs" can be drawn from our current level of experience and research. It's impossible. Even the best known of them, the most thoroughly studied, have been displaying completely unanticipated and unstudied side effects very recently - such as the effects on the internal microbiomes of glyphosate exposed bees, the motive of this thread. And that was predicted - the critics of Monsanto's profit-driven promulgation of glyphosate resistance were correct in pointing to the very large areas of ignorance accompanying it and the likelihood of trouble therefrom.

    For example: Nobody knows very much about the effects of ingestion of the glyphosate resistance code, or the glyphosate itself, on the human gut microbiome. If any. That one aspect of that one genetic manipulation - the oldest and by far the best understood of all the genetic manipulations - is just being investigated now. Meanwhile, we are ignorant.

    And that is far from the only uninvestigated aspect of just that one GM, in any of its Os. That, the oldest and best known GM, is in many respects unknown.

    There is no safety in ignorance.

    * Sample:
    Mind, the only "GEs" they were talking about were glyphosate resistance and Bt expression in a few crop plants. And they couldn't say anything for sure even about them (which they were wise not to - the latest news about the bees was about to drop).
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2018
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    apologies.
    i thought the info which i simply googled then quickly sorted for headline issues was of sufficient data to give a general outline.

    note
    any organization that trys to clip the ticket at both ends is always going to pander to a
    "we don't really know and here is some stuff to fill in your empty boxes with that wont give any real clue to which side we collect money from"
    kinda stance then walk the reader off on a garden tour that goes around in a circle with platitudes of
    "isnt it all soo confusing"

    yes i am well aware.
    i suggest you dont set up camp in such information malaise's and simply move on.

    NOTE
    neither has the word "crop" in it.
    mono culture farming is a separate subject.
    maybe you have been cross reading and inadvertently jumped t the link while thinking about the other subject, while expecting it to be on


    i suspect im preaching to the choir in asking if you would like me to source some other material on the subject for you.


    note this is probably chemistry 101 for them to define a test group inside something common like corn or maize.
    you may wish to check that with a biochemist.
    keeping in mind they are going to be getting paid by the producers of corn and maize.
    or
    they are going to be pandering to the largest money group(americanism) to try and get a money value headline to sell the science(more americanism).
    as again, i suggest you dont pitch your tent there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_(fungus)

    i dont wish to scream fire in a crowded cinema.. but you seem to be drawing my attention to this
    https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/candidiasis/invasive/statistics.html
    shocking to think the data is 5 years old.
    but not when you think of the divisive attack on womens health care in the USA via political organisations

    2 people every day in every state contract invasive yeast infections...
    and it is highly contagious.
    the potential if this were a 'nasty' would be quite horrendous to make a jump to secondary contact & survivable for several days.
    im not good at math
    what is the exponential growth factor of secondary contact @ 126 new cases per day ?
    probably not very good news.

    ... moving on ...

    this is one of my big concerns i have been attempting to read on for the last 15 years or soo.
    RE: CCD

    climate change would probably be a good basic guide to the sheer volume of miss information being put out to taint the science.

    interesting that the UK has gone for this BREXIT thing when the European Union is making inroads into environmental protections.
    i am not suggesting insidious intent, just(the somewhat current era of irony) that the potential momentum of a potential democratic body making positive rules to protect the planet and future generations is probably getting snowed under in debates around its own authority.

    I am sure the UK is not an anti climate change monster.
    they have a very strong wild flower and gardening & horticulture culture that is looking to the future.
    bees on roof tops etc ....
    there is momentum all bee it small.
    resistance or resistant ?
    resistance would be by design ?(active) = GM to be a compiled DNA code to resist mutation... ?
    resistant would be semi natural state ?(passive)
    [im not going to spell check and grammar check]

    ironically there is $800.00 per kilo in top quality Honey
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2018
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,383
    I should apologize. It's available free, right on the link.
    The link I was talking about does. Title:

    The introduced genetic code that establishes glyphosate resistance in the engineered plant
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    i have on occasions confused links with different posts in threads so i know how it happens.

    ok i must have missed this somewhere.
    i am googling to get an idea of what it is about.

    from backyard wild flower clubs to industrial monoculture farmers being handed packets of seeds to throw around... there is far too much ongoing for me to keep abreast of it while also working a 50 to 60 hour week.
    not to mention all the industrial strength bullshit being parroted by people who want desperately to associate as a political body to a mono thought ideology to solve all their ills.
    i have termed them the "just do it" generation.
    "smash everything and if it doesn't work out it doesn't matter because you gave it a go"
    the anti-christ of participationism lol
    they rally hard against the ultra conservative "just dont do it" generation
    people are fine until they get into groups. then it all goes to shit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (this is satire for those who do not comprehend it)


    my focus is on trying to stay loosely up to date with the driving edge of scientific discovery(though i have been very lazy the last few years) around the primary causes of mutation & CCD and other such ecological nightmare issues.

    ah ! ok !
    i understand what you mean.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2018
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,331
    Nope.

    I am assuming you are referring to colony collapse disorder. There are a lot of reasons for that. The primary ones are "the 4 P's": parasites, poor nutrition, pathogens and pesticides. (In that order.) In terms of pesticides the big offenders are neonicotonids - not glyphosphate. The neonicotinoids are restricted for that reason, but farmers continue to misuse the top three (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) to protect their crops. Since those pesticides are designed to kill insects, it makes sense that bees would be sensitive to them.

    So yes, bees have a problem. Pesticides are not even in the top three threats to them. And when it comes to pesticides, glyphosphate isn't even in the top three threats. (In fact it's not even a pesticide - it's an herbicide.)

    Want to help bees? Support work on the bee vaccine - a vaccine that confers immunity to several bee-colony diseases.
     
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,553
    Wouldn't it also be useful to know what conditions in the environment promote those diseases and parasites?
    What, specifically, changed, and why?
    Of course, poor nutrition can well be traced to the eradication of all those flowering "weeds" that river objects to, so I'd expect herbicides to play a role. And with the loss of so many flying insects in a short time, might parasites have been forced to concentrate on fewer hosts? It all fits together in varied and complex patterns. It's reasonable to suppose that the introduction of toxins must be a factor. Modified plant genes may or may not be a factor.
     
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    side note...
    are these plants safe to eat ?
    does it make much of a difference ?
    what if 50% of your diet is comprised of this plant ? (wheat & corn & soya)
    what if you always soak this in oil then heat it ? for years on end ?
    does it have any effects like estrogen simulating compounds that make male babies infertile and give them things like breast cancer ?

    who knows ? (sorry what ? did you say who cares?)
    the only people who care are the ones being paid to care. and that is 0 people.

    should companys be allowed to do such things and sell it to the poor over eating domestic violence propagating racist masses who dont support universal health care or social services ?

    thats a tricky question for a capitalist society where morality is seen as subjective and only affordable once you have become rich.

    knowingly over eating knowingly bad quality food kills
    it is the equal 1st killer via cardiac arrest death

    should people care about those who wont care about themselves ?
    is that a new moral question for those who dont care about others to give health care for children or social services ?

    tough questions at Christmas time
    the worst time for domestic homicide and violence.
    most number of marriage break ups

    hard to discuss the science when soo many cant keep it real(and have no desire to do so).

    what does caring mean ? is that purely a fancy privilege of subjective nature to moral etherialism ?
     
  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,553
    I very much doubt GM soy beans contribute to family violence. It might be better not to mix sciences.

    As to whether GM plants are safe for humans to eat, probably. Long-term affects won't be known until - well, the long term - but preliminary studies suggest that they are negligible, compared, for instance to the risks of large-scale meat production and distribution, or compared to the risks of contamination of produce by industrial or livestock effluent, chemical additives, allergens, etc. Especially compared to starving. For a lot of people, there is very little choice of foodstuffs.

    As to whether this is the best way to solve food crop insecurity, I don't believe so.
    That's not science, it's merely an observation. Simplistic blanket solutions to varied local problems rarely turn out well.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,331
    No. No food is completely safe to eat. However, compared to most other foods, it is relatively safe.
    Then you would be a very sick person. Making 50% of your diet ANYTHING will tend to have that effect. We evolved to eat a variety of foods.
    No.
    Should the evil horrible domestic violence propagating racist John Gerard have been allowed to introduce the poisonous hybrid known as the "tomato" to sell to the poor?
    Let's put it this way.

    If you currently eat 50% of your calories as organic bacon, and you switch to GMO apples, you will likely live a LOT longer.
    If you 'care' so much that people starve, are you really that caring?
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,962
    Except maybe "Ensure".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,553
    Have you ever had to subsist on that stuff? Ugh! Probably made of modified corn originally intended for fuel. Just add screamingly artificial flavour.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,962
    Oh yes. Actually, it's cousin, Glucerna. Very hard to get down. Best taken as cold as possible to kill the taste and texture.
    But you'd probably do pretty well on it.
     

Share This Page