Quantcast
GMO - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: GMO

  1. #31
    Senior Member Deckhand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Costa Mesa California
    Posts
    1,737
    Back on topic:
    Monsanto made agent orange, poisoned Hawaii,buried a fox news story, and has a vice president that works at the FDA now.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...dZcQ_blog.html
    I trust them.

  2. #32
    My opinion on this is one of sadness. I'm saddened by the human need to improve things that may not need improving. Why do we constantly mess with things to the point of destruction? We improve many things that give us short term benefits while paying deeply with long term consequences.

    My belief is that this is all about $$$$$$$ and not at all about solving hunger problems.

    On a side note, I live on the edge of corn country - it's everywhere here - and all I see are placards for modified corn crops everywhere as I drive around. We are literally living in the middle of a genetic experiment which at one time was simply a farming community.

    I shop at local farms and the farmer's market but now I feel that I need to start questioning them about GMO and their use of this stuff. Isn't it sad that I can't trust that the Amish don't use this stuff?

  3. #33


    As i live in DK i dont have to think about GMO to much. I always try to buy thinks local and organic if i have a chance.
    But my opinion of GMO will be, if it can help pur population then why not

    But as i see it now, it been mostly used to make bigger profit and modifying things in to easier use. But it is not only GMO it is all food in General.
    We see it more an more, and unfortunately it will probably be the future of our food.

    haha wile i read my last line i sound like an old man

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The incredibly sophisticated Boise, ID <g>
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Deckhand View Post
    Back on topic:
    Monsanto made agent orange, poisoned Hawaii,buried a fox news story, and has a vice president that works at the FDA now.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...dZcQ_blog.html
    I trust them.
    Hey. If you can't trust Monsanto, the FDA and The Dept. of Agriculture....who CAN you trust. LOL

  5. #35
    Senior Member EdipisReks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, Oh
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Martell View Post
    My opinion on this is one of sadness. I'm saddened by the human need to improve things that may not need improving. Why do we constantly mess with things to the point of destruction? We improve many things that give us short term benefits while paying deeply with long term consequences.

    My belief is that this is all about $$$$$$$ and not at all about solving hunger problems.

    On a side note, I live on the edge of corn country - it's everywhere here - and all I see are placards for modified corn crops everywhere as I drive around. We are literally living in the middle of a genetic experiment which at one time was simply a farming community.

    I shop at local farms and the farmer's market but now I feel that I need to start questioning them about GMO and their use of this stuff. Isn't it sad that I can't trust that the Amish don't use this stuff?
    Dave, there is no difference between a gene being inserted by a scientist using a retro-virus and a novel gene emerging randomly and then being incorporated into a plant or animal through cross-breeding. hell, many genes in both our genome and in the genome of the things we eat were naturally inserted by retro-viruses in nature. almost nothing we eat is "natural," as anything grown by man has been modified. bananas didn't start out as seedless easy-to-peel marvels. they were made into that by cross-breeding lines that had different random mutations. the end result of that is no different than finding the gene you want and inserting it directly. all agriculture is a genetics experiment. all agriculture consists of GMO, because whenever you choose to allow one seed to be planted over a different seed, you are genetically modifying your crop. the politics and the science are completely separate.

    and of course it's about money. almost everything is.

  6. #36

    Zwiefel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Posts
    2,319
    I think this is a case of "in theory there is no difference in theory and practice, but in practice there is."

    I don't think that the gene insertion techniques used in labs make anything new possible. they do have a huge effect on the LIKELIHOOD of certain events though. e.g., it's possible that virus could migrate a gene from a fish to corn...but it's incredibly unlikely. Does that mean it's bad? as always: it depends.

    In terms of the role of GM in food production. If we switched all agricultural activity to organic techniques, the food yield across the planet would decrease so much that the number of starvations would increase dramatically. The usual metric for this is: 1,000,000,000 people. one billion. So, for the foreseeable future, organic crops will remain a choice for relatively wealthy people, and super poor people (who don't have the capital for modern agri techniques)....the extreme ends of the spectrum.
    Remember: You're a unique individual...just like everybody else.

  7. #37
    Senior Member EdipisReks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, Oh
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwiefel View Post
    e.g., it's possible that virus could migrate a gene from a fish to corn...but it's incredibly unlikely. Does that mean it's bad? as always: it depends.
    that's not how it works. a retro-virus is used to deliver a genetic payload into a germ cell, and the payload is tailored to be inserted into a specific place on a specific chromosome of a specific specie's cell nucleus. it's not present in the final product, and even if it was, the virus no longer has a payload to deliver, and even if it did, there almost certainly wouldn't be a place for the payload to be delivered . there is a possibility of whatever you plant that is GMO being cross-bred with something else, but the possibility of harm isn't any different from anything else. the only real possibility of harm in that scenario is to whatever company is trying to sell the characteristic in question. there is an awful lot of fear with an awful little amount of basis. i blame high schools for it.

  8. #38

    Zwiefel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by EdipisReks View Post
    that's not how it works. a retro-virus is used to deliver a genetic payload into a germ cell, and the payload is tailored to be inserted into a specific place on a specific chromosome of a specific specie's cell nucleus. it's not present in the final product, and even if it was, the virus no longer has a payload to deliver, and even if it did, there almost certainly wouldn't be a place for the payload to be delivered . there is a possibility of whatever you plant that is GMO being cross-bred with something else, but the possibility of harm isn't any different from anything else. the only real possibility of harm in that scenario is to whatever company is trying to sell the characteristic in question. there is an awful lot of fear with an awful little amount of basis. i blame high schools for it.
    Certainly I'm not a geneticist...but we do have a LOT of cruft in our DNA from these kinds of processes--virii depositing DNA segments into our DNA...obviously this is only inherited if it occurs in a sperm/ovum that is then part of conception. Clearly, this is not where MOST of our genetic code comes from though, so yes, point taken. Was just drawing the closest analogy my education offers.
    Remember: You're a unique individual...just like everybody else.

  9. #39
    Senior Member EdipisReks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, Oh
    Posts
    3,487
    a pretty big part of our "active" genome is derived from virus transcription, actually. you can likely think a virus for the fact that starches turn sweet in saliva, as a gene responsible for amlyase production was transcribed from digestive tract code. i'm not a geneticist either, but i worked with them for years, in a technical capacity (i kept their experiments running), and it's a strong interest of mine.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    407
    Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution was one of the big success stories of the late twentieth century. Paul Ehrlich had written "The Population Bomb" in 1968, that millions of people would die in the 1970's and 1980's, because of lack of food. Borlaug cultivated a high yield wheat, that dramatically increased the production of farm lands. Mexico went from importing wheat to exporting it. Bourlaug went to Pakistan amidst a war, and planted his wheat with artillery shells going off in the distance. With in a decade Pakistan and India were growing enough wheat to feed their populations. Millions of people didn't die, because of the Green Revolution.

    Now we got people wringing their hands over genetic modified food? Please, all vegetables as we know them are genetically modified. We used to say cultivated or breed. Genetic seems to conjure up images of scientists working in labs, injecting vegetables with unknown substances. The so called modification is that a particular trait is desirable, like carrots being orange. I don't know why that trait is desirable, but apparently the Dutch liked it.

    Jay

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •