PDA

View Full Version : G M Foods



Axiom
31-07-2009, 04:20 PM
No i'm not talking about Grandmaster Foods , but genetically modified foods (you know that which your media informs you so well on).
Foods( like soy and maize products ) little researched that we are eating now!


Highly recommended book on the subject:

Seeds of Destruction

The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

by F. William Engdahl

Global Research

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517aimwRvrL._SL500_AA240_.jpg



What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything-- science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds-- have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production. (Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland)

If you want to learn about the socio-political agenda --why biotech corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the World-- you should read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these corporations want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resist... (Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia)

The book reads like a murder mystery of an incredible dimension, in which four giant Anglo-American agribusiness conglomerates have no hesitation to use GMO to gain control over our very means of subsistence... (Anton Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14570

Axiom
31-07-2009, 07:35 PM
GM crops being grown in Britain
Genetically-modified crops are being grown in Britain for the first time in a year after controversial trials of the plants were "secretly" restarted

Cultivation of a field of potatoes designed to be resistant to pests were abandoned over a year ago when environmental protesters ripped up the crop

But, without alerting the public as is usual when such trials begin, the project has been restarted, prompting environmental groups to warn that local farms and nearby residents could be put at risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/5912012/GM-crops-being-grown-in-Britain.html

Hobbes
31-07-2009, 07:45 PM
Why the secrecy?

Um, this quote from your link might offer a clue:-


Almost all of the 54 GM crop trials which have been conducted since 2000 have been targeted by opponents and vandalised.

Glad to have helped!

Axiom
31-07-2009, 07:56 PM
Why the secrecy?

Um, this quote from your link might offer a clue:-



Glad to have helped!
ok , now you are ready for question2 : why were almost all of the 54 GM crop trials which have been conducted since 2000 been targeted by opponents and vandalised ?

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 08:03 PM
ok , now you are ready for question2 : why were almost all of the 54 GM crop trials which have been conducted since 2000 been targeted by opponents and vandalised ?

Because irrespective of whether GM foods are safe or not safe, misinformed ludites thinking that they are catastrophically unsafe will rip them up anyway.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 08:10 PM
Because irrespective of whether GM foods are safe or not safe, misinformed ludites thinking that they are catastrophically unsafe will rip them up anyway.
misinformed as in F. William Engdahl ?

Hobbes
31-07-2009, 08:10 PM
OK, I assume Question 2 is multiple choice.
Something like:

A) A number of thoughtful, intelligent, informed people take time out from their busy schedules to save the world in this way from the evils of GM crops.

B) Some kooks, luddites, conspiracy theorists and professional protesters with nothing to do and their dole cheques to spend have GM crops as one of their pushbutton issues.

I guess (B). Am I right?

ElevatorEscapee
31-07-2009, 08:11 PM
Ignorance, lack of education, and fear mongering would be my guess as to the reasoning behind the attacks. :)

Axiom
31-07-2009, 08:11 PM
OK, I assume Question 2 is multiple choice.
Something like:

A) A number of thoughtful, intelligent, informed people take time out from their busy schedules to save the world in this way from the evils of GM crops.

B) Some kooks, luddites, conspiracy theorists and professional protesters with nothing to do and their dole cheques to spend have GM crops as one of their pushbutton issues.

I guess (B). Am I right?
NO
Start reading the book, above.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 08:13 PM
Ignorance, lack of education, and fear mongering would be my guess as to the reasoning behind the attacks. :)
No doubt many , fed by the corporate news media will elicit that programmed response , totally uninformed of both sides of the argument .
Read the above book , so as to gain a more informed perspective.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 08:16 PM
misinformed as in F. William Engdahl ?

Does F. William Engdahl (whose only scientific degree is in engineering) rip up GM crops?

Incidentally Engdahl certainly either was or is misinformed about oil (I'm no expert but my money is on both) since he has switched from being a peak oil hysteric to being an abiogenic oil nut.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 08:21 PM
Does F. William Engdahl (whose only scientific degree is in engineering) rip up GM crops? no but his readers understandably might


Incidentally Engdahl certainly either was or is misinformed about oil (I'm no expert but my money is on both) since he has switched from being a peak oil hysteric to being an abiogenesis nut.
as RW opined , trust the evidence not the source .

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 08:31 PM
as RW opined , trust the evidence not the source .

Well, you're suggesting this book is worth reading. But if I wanted to read a useful book about GM food issues I would read one written by a qualified geneticist who had considered all sides of the argument. I'm not even going to waste my time opening one by an ex-engineer with a known track record of jumping from one extreme theory of the state of the earth's oil reserves to another.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 08:36 PM
Well, you're suggesting this book is worth reading. But if I wanted to read a useful book about GM food issues I would read one written by a qualified geneticist who had considered all sides of the argument. I'm not even going to waste my time opening one by an ex-engineer with a known track record of jumping from one extreme theory of the state of the earth's oil reserves to another.
i'm sorry , you must be better informed on the subject than these people


What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything-- science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds-- have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production. (Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland)

If you want to learn about the socio-political agenda --why biotech corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the World-- you should read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these corporations want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resist... (Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia)

The book reads like a murder mystery of an incredible dimension, in which four giant Anglo-American agribusiness conglomerates have no hesitation to use GMO to gain control over our very means of subsistence... (Anton Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria).

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 08:52 PM
i'm sorry , you must be better informed on the subject than these people

Well I looked for the full source for the Moser quote and couldn't even find the full review, so given your long track record for presenting material quote-mined out of context I'm ignoring that one unless you can link to the full text of Moser's original review.

According to this favourable source (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-biotech/2005-March/0316-qa.html) Jost's book was launched by local Greens and Jost is a "famous anti GM expert". I don't dispute his qualifications but am unsure of his neutrality. Of course, not being neutral doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong, but I would prefer to start with a neutral source.

Would you buy a book that argued the case for GM crops and was written by a qualified employee of Monsanto?

Axiom
31-07-2009, 09:02 PM
Would you buy a book that argued the case for GM crops and was written by a qualified employee of Monsanto?
no, but Engdahl is not employed by any group or corporation.
so read the book, so you can gain a more informed position , unless you have already made up your mind by listening to monsanto and the corporate media .
perhaps you can provide your trusted source of evidence supporting the use of gm foods.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 09:07 PM
no, but Engdahl is not employed by any group or corporation.

So? His standing as a scientist is both marginal and irrelevant. It would be like me writing a book about whether the Tasman Bridge was going to collapse next time a boat ran into it. I would rather even talk to someone who was biased but informed - at least they would have a clue.


perhaps you can provide your trusted source of evidence supporting the use of gm foods.

I have not taken any such position so this is just the usual with-us-or-you're-against-us straw man rubbish that I usually get from green activists.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 09:11 PM
I would rather even talk to someone who was biased but informed - at least they would have a clue.
again i paraphrase rw " trust the evidence not the source"



I have not taken any such position so this is just the usual with-us-or-you're-against-us straw man rubbish that I usually get from green activists.
, your position was clear when you alluded to "Luddites"

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 09:20 PM
[defamation deleted -KB], your position was clear when you alluded to "Luddites"

What rubbish. Just because I think the extreme opponents of GM are luddites doesn't mean I necessarily support GM foods. It just means that I take a certain view of the motivations of extremist lawbreaking vandals in the debate, as I do of similar actions in a wide range of debates.

You have groundlessly attacked my honesty because you are too much of a simplistic, blinkered and shallow idealogue to understand that opposition to extremism does not necessarily imply support for the status quo or even holding of an advocative position on the issue. You have also breached the rules of this board and the laws of defamation in so doing.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 09:26 PM
What rubbish. Just because I think the extreme opponents of GM are luddites doesn't mean I necessarily support GM foods. It just means that I take a certain view of the motivations of extremist lawbreaking vandals in the debate, as I do of similar actions in a wide range of debates.

You have groundlessly attacked my honesty because you are too much of a simplistic, blinkered and shallow idealogue to understand that opposition to extremism does not necessarily imply support for the status quo or even holding of an advocative position on the issue. You have also breached the rules of this board and the laws of defamation in so doing.
if thats the case why the unremitting attack on one of the foremost critical works ?

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 09:34 PM
if thats the case why the unremitting attack on one of the foremost critical works ?

How do I know if it's a "foremost critical work" or not? Let's face it, if one of the foremost critical works on GM foods is written by an engineer/economist who can't make up his mind which load of nonsense he believes about oil, then the anti-GM lobby is in serious intellectual trouble.

I haven't been attacking the work itself; I've been attacking the assumption that it is likely to be worth reading, since the evidence suggests otherwise.

But you shouldn't need to know my reasons to realise your contemptible use of a certain four-letter word was out of order. If you do not know enough to prove that your use of that word is correct when you first use it, then you should not use it in the first place.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 09:44 PM
How do I know if it's a "foremost critical work" or not? Let's face it, if one of the foremost critical works on GM foods is written by an engineer/economist who can't make up his mind which load of nonsense he believes about oil, then the anti-GM lobby is in serious intellectual trouble. to not know that this is a foremost work , given the luminaries endorsing it , and the powerful body of analysis and evidence it presents , makes you too ill informed to adequately comment on it really.

I haven't been attacking the work itself; I've been attacking the assumption that it is likely to be worth reading, since the evidence suggests otherwise. and this is the error of arguing from authority and not from argument and evidence.



But you shouldn't need to know my reasons to realise your contemptible use of a certain four-letter word was out of order. If you do not know enough to prove that your use of that word is correct when you first use it, then you should not use it in the first place.
it appeared you were lying ,considering the apparent gross contradiction ...but i accept , post hoc , an incorrect judgement on my part , and withdraw that comment.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 10:46 PM
to not know that this is a foremost work , given the luminaries endorsing it , and the powerful body of analysis and evidence it presents , makes you too ill informed to adequately comment on it really.
and this is the error of arguing from authority and not from argument and evidence.

The funny thing here is that you are arguing from authority in suggesting that the clearly unsubstantiated assertions of the qualified reviewers are relevant.

I am actually not arguing from authority against the book's contents, since I have not read them. What I am saying is that it is a fact that the works of qualified people on a subject are more likely to be illuminating and therefore if a person wishes to explore a subject then they are practically better off starting with a qualified source. Of course, a qualified source could be rubbish while an unqualified one might be brilliant, but the tendencies are otherwise. An argument from authority would be saying the book is definitely rubbish because its author is unqualified. That I do not say; I just say that the probabilities appear unfavourable.

Have you read the book in question? Can you say anything about its merits in your own words?


it appeared you were lying ,considering the apparent gross contradiction ...but i accept , post hoc , an incorrect judgement on my part , and withdraw that comment.

Thankyou. I strongly encourage you to be very much more careful in jumping to conclusions that people are lying in the future as in this case the amount of thought you put into such an accusation was not within a million miles of adequate. Even if it appears that someone is lying you should hold off saying so until it becomes indisputable.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 11:00 PM
Have you read the book in question? Can you say anything about its merits in your own words? i have read much on the topic by this author and others , without actually reading the book itself , but feel well enough qualified to present this source of information (as primarily a researcher of media/information), especially to those that have never even heard of it !

The most important critical point imo is this :
the lack of adequate research in establishing the safety of gm foods




Thankyou. I strongly encourage you to be very much more careful in jumping to conclusions that people are lying in the future as in this case the amount of thought you put into such an accusation was not within a million miles of adequate. Even if it appears that someone is lying you should hold off saying so until it becomes indisputable. agreed

deanhogg
31-07-2009, 11:19 PM
Fascinating debate and you two are having ! Here is my take on GM food

Genetic modification is nothing new. People have manipulated foods and food crops for long time , through methods ranging from fermentation to classical selection. Genetic engineering is just the latest form of biotechnology—the most precise method yet. More testing needs to be done make sure it
100% safe .

Axiom
31-07-2009, 11:22 PM
More testing needs to be done make sure it
100% safe .
that's my primary point , which no one can argue against !

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 11:29 PM
i have read much on the topic by this author and others , without actually reading the book itself

So you are telling us that we should read a book that you haven't even bothered to read!


but feel well enough qualified to present this source of information (as primarily a researcher of media/information)

Researcher? Regurgitator more like it! :hand:

Axiom
31-07-2009, 11:41 PM
So you are telling us that we should read a book that you haven't even bothered to read!



Researcher? Regurgitator more like it! :hand:
puffery and blindness to my stated fundamental point !
ie. the lack of adequate research in establishing the safety of gm foods

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 11:50 PM
puffery and blindness to my stated fundamental point !
ie. the lack of adequate research in establishing the safety of gm foods

No, if that was your fundamental point you could have introduced it from the start. Instead you started with a review of a book that according to its own blurb is about the politics of the issue and not just whether there is adequate research.

As for "adequate research", how much do you consider adequate and when would you know that much had been done? Remember that Dean's "100% safe" is a mirage. We can never know anything is totally safe - the best we can do is know that all known dangers or known-to-be-hypothesised dangers have come up negative.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 11:55 PM
No, if that was your fundamental point you could have introduced it from the start. Instead you started with a review of a book that according to its own blurb is about the politics of the issue and not just whether there is adequate research.i don't need to present it at the start ,when it was the book's primary point.... i presented it first ,many posts ago, you overlooked it.


As for "adequate research", how much do you consider adequate and when would you know that much had been done? Remember that Dean's "100% safe" is a mirage. We can never know anything is totally safe - the best we can do is know that all known dangers or known-to-be-hypothesised dangers have come up negative.
adequate , as in longitudinal studies for instance !

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 11:58 PM
i don't need to present it at the start , i presented it first ,many posts ago, you overlooked it.

Which post?


adequate , as in longitudinal studies for instance !

So are you saying there should be longitudinal studies involving humans?

Axiom
01-08-2009, 12:04 AM
Which post?

post #24 bolded


So are you saying there should be longitudinal studies involving humans? that's exactly whats happening !!!
before such studies on mice or monkeys !

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2009, 12:09 AM
post #24 bolded

Post 24 is hardly "many posts ago" when I am asking the question at post 29.

You edited in a claim that it was "the book's primary point" but the book's blurbs suggest otherwise and you haven't read the book, so you would not know.


that's exactly whats happening !!!
before such studies on mice or monkeys !

Are you saying such studies on other animals are not being conducted?

Axiom
01-08-2009, 12:14 AM
Post 24 is hardly "many posts ago" when I am asking the question at post 29. long enough ago, for you to have missed it .


You edited in a claim that it was "the book's primary point" but the book's blurbs suggest otherwise and you haven't read the book, so you would not know. the conclusion reached by esteemed reviewer
given in first post.



Are you saying such studies on other animals are not being conducted?
not to the extent required to establish it's safety for humans .

Axiom
01-08-2009, 12:15 AM
how about we both read the book kb , and come back here to thrash it out ?

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2009, 12:25 AM
long enough ago, for you to have missed it .

Not likely. I'm notorious for my ability to remember and dig up things people have said years ago; you're not going to fool anyone if you suggest my attention span is so short that I'd be likely to have forgotten #24 already when posting #27 and #29. Just because I don't quote and reply to every single sentence doesn't mean I didn't read it.


the conclusion reached by esteemed reviewer
given in first post.

You quoted three reviewers and none of them gave that conclusion in the material you quoted from them.


not to the extent required to establish it's safety for humans .

What is that extent in your view? How many trials on what animals with what results? Do you generally support animal experimentation?

Axiom
01-08-2009, 12:33 AM
Not likely. I'm notorious for my ability to remember and dig up things people have said years ago; you're not going to fool anyone if you suggest my attention span is so short that I'd be likely to have forgotten #24 already when posting #27 and #29. Just because I don't quote and reply to every single sentence doesn't mean I didn't read it. no, i meant as in long enough ago for you to have noticed it .





You quoted three reviewers and none of them gave that conclusion in the material you quoted from them.
my error , i was thinking of another reviewer



What is that extent in your view? How many trials on what animals with what results? Do you generally support animal experimentation?
the extent is small ,
extensive trials , over a long period of time , rather than have us consuming gm soy and gm maize now !, without it being labeled as such !
i support animal experimentation over human experimentation !

Rincewind
01-08-2009, 12:36 AM
again i paraphrase rw " trust the evidence not the source'

And the evidence is that Engdahl is a loon.

See the following story where he suggests the abiogenic petroleum hypothesis. He is right where he says it was suggested in Russia in the 50's but he is wrong when he says it is practically unknown in the west. The 1950s Russians didn't invent the hypothesis but revived the ideas of 18th century scientists like Humboldt. Very few people (including Russians) think it very credible these days. Although the odd proponent can be found for any idea.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2007/0925.html

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2009, 01:01 AM
no, i meant as in long enough ago for you to have noticed it .

Well that doesn't make sense either. #27 was a reply to most of #24 after all. Obviously I read #24.


extensive trials , over a long period of time , rather than have us consuming gm soy and gm maize now !, without it being labeled as such !

Are you saying that GM foods in Australia are not labelled as such?

By the way there is a guy on Tasmanian Times who overuses and misplaces exclamation marks even more than you do.

Axiom
01-08-2009, 01:38 AM
And the evidence is that Engdahl is a loon.

See the following story where he suggests the abiogenic petroleum hypothesis. He is right where he says it was suggested in Russia in the 50's but he is wrong when he says it is practically unknown in the west. The 1950s Russians didn't invent the hypothesis but revived the ideas of 18th century scientists like Humboldt. Very few people (including Russians) think it very credible these days. Although the odd proponent can be found for any idea.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2007/0925.html
ridiculous argument .
firstly you don't conclude "loon" for one error , if it is that.
secondly this is totally irrelevant to his work on gm foods, just as a person tried for one crime should not be unduly effected in judgement by any previous unrelated crimes .

Axiom
01-08-2009, 01:41 AM
Well that doesn't make sense either. #27 was a reply to most of #24 after all. Obviously I read #24.did i say you did not ?
i simply said you overlooked it.




Are you saying that GM foods in Australia are not labelled as such? yes , are you saying they are ?


By the way there is a guy on Tasmanian Times who overuses and misplaces exclamation marks even more than you do. !!!!!

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2009, 01:56 AM
did i say you did not ?
i simply said you overlooked it.

Well you were incorrect. I just didn't choose to comment on it.


yes , are you saying they are ?

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/frequentlyaskedquest3862.cfm

See entirity of part 3.

If you have evidence that these requirements are not enforced, please present it. I have not had cause to examine whether they are or are not but it is clear that labelling requirements exist.

Axiom
01-08-2009, 01:59 AM
Well you were incorrect. I just didn't choose to comment on it.
normally when someone says this is the point and bolds it , you comment on it.




http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/frequentlyaskedquest3862.cfm

See entirety of part 3.

If you have evidence that these requirements are not enforced, please present it. I have not had cause to examine whether they are or are not myself. and the research continues....
isn't it odd that something as important as whether our foods are adequately gm labeled is not gleaned from our 'wonderfully informing media' , which we cognitively dissonantly admit grossly ill informs us !

Rincewind
01-08-2009, 02:24 AM
ridiculous argument .

First let's see if you've understood it.


firstly you don't conclude "loon" for one error , if it is that.

I said it was evidence that he was a loon. I didn't say based on this one article I conclude he is a loon.


secondly this is totally irrelevant to his work on gm foods, just as a person tried for one crime should not be unduly effected in judgement by any previous unrelated crimes .

It is entirely irrelevant. It speaks to his ability to access good science which doesn't fit with his agenda versus pseudo-science which does fit with his agenda. It also is worth noting he is wrong on points of history regarding the abiogenic hypothesis. In one paragraph he says


"An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950’s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more."

It clearly credits the theory as originating in Russia in the 1950s and while they did reignite interest in the idea, as I point out previous many scientists including the world famous German Humboldt proposed an abiotic origin for some petroleum deposits more than 100 years earlier. He then goes on to suggest that it is it is a case of east versus west where all Russian geologists are abiogenicists and all western geologists are biogenicists, this is not the case with dissenters on both sides (most notably in the west is Gold who had been pushing that barrow since the 70s, up until his death a few years ago). He also writes the last paragraph in the present tense to suggest that this remains the case today. Since the 1980s abiogenic petroleum origin is credited by very few geologists, in Russia or outside.

Someone claiming to be a journalist and historian should really try to get the facts straight.

Axiom
01-08-2009, 02:30 AM
First let's see if you've understood it.



I said it was evidence that he was a loon. I didn't say based on this one article I conclude he is a loon.



It is entirely irrelevant. It speaks to his ability to access good science which doesn't fit with his agenda versus pseudo-science which does fit with his agenda. It also is worth noting he is wrong on points of history regarding the abiogenic hypothesis. In one paragraph he says


"An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950’s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more."

It clearly credits the theory as originating in Russia in the 1950s and while they did reignite interest in the idea, as I point out previous many scientists including the world famous German Humboldt proposed an abiotic origin for some petroleum deposits more than 100 years earlier. He then goes on to suggest that it is it is a case of east versus west where all Russian geologists are abiogenicists and all western geologists are biogenicists, this is not the case with dissenters on both sides (most notably in the west is Gold who had been pushing that barrow since the 70s, up until his death a few years ago). He also writes the last paragraph in the present tense to suggest that this remains the case today. Since the 1980s abiogenic petroleum origin is credited by very few geologists, in Russia or outside.

Someone claiming to be a journalist and historian should really try to get the facts straight.
one error ,unrelated to gm foods ,does not make an untrustworthy source on gm foods.
what is your general view of gm foods ?
benign? a concern?

Rincewind
01-08-2009, 10:50 AM
one error ,unrelated to gm foods ,does not make an untrustworthy source on gm foods.
what is your general view of gm foods ?
benign? a concern?

Actually three specific errors.


origin of the abiotic hypothesis
diametric distribution of belief in biotic/abiotic origin
present support of abiotic genesis


And that is just looking at one paragraph.

One can identify the species of a tree by examining its fruit. In the case of Engdahl, the fruit is looking pear-shaped.

Jesper Norgaard
01-08-2009, 03:05 PM
Let me put my private opinion about GM Foods. The new techniques for applying changes to DNA chains etc. in plants are no different from the mutations that Mother Nature performs on her own now and then in the same plants. That these natural mutations happen have long been known and proven. In fact it is quite probable that Wheat emerged from such a mutation 10K years ago.

These GM food manipulations just makes it much easier to choose exactly which mutations you would want as a scientist. But if we are doomed from any genetic change a scientist can do in a plant, then we are already doomed from the natural changes that happen. It will just take longer. Frankly I think it is extremely unlikely that humanity will become extinct because a terrible Franken-potato was created that eventually wiped out all known life. It just goes against all facts about evolution of life during billions of years here on Earth.

The anti- GM Food activists have to come up with better arguments for why it is so dangerous. A probable scenario that makes sense from the facts we know about plant breeding today.

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2009, 04:07 PM
normally when someone says this is the point and bolds it , you comment on it.

So? In this case I didn't.


isn't it odd that something as important as whether our foods are adequately gm labeled is not gleaned from our 'wonderfully informing media' , which we cognitively dissonantly admit grossly ill informs us !

Actually I haven't been paying enough attention to the mainstream media to say whether the mainstream media has adequately informed us on that issue.

I suspect you haven't either.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2009, 08:38 PM
Let me put my private opinion about GM Foods. The new techniques for applying changes to DNA chains etc. in plants are no different from the mutations that Mother Nature performs on her own now and then in the same plants. That these natural mutations happen have long been known and proven. In fact it is quite probable that Wheat emerged from such a mutation 10K years ago.

These GM food manipulations just makes it much easier to choose exactly which mutations you would want as a scientist. But if we are doomed from any genetic change a scientist can do in a plant, then we are already doomed from the natural changes that happen. It will just take longer. Frankly I think it is extremely unlikely that humanity will become extinct because a terrible Franken-potato was created that eventually wiped out all known life. It just goes against all facts about evolution of life during billions of years here on Earth.

The anti- GM Food activists have to come up with better arguments for why it is so dangerous. A probable scenario that makes sense from the facts we know about plant breeding today.

Chess is not the only area you are good at!
Generally speaking I agree with a small caveat:
Natural changes occur much slower. As such some DNA changes forces by scientists might not have a chance to occur (as the plant would dye in the middle of the change chain).
The could be some short-problems with GM food, but IMO positives outweigh negatives.

Axiom
01-08-2009, 10:37 PM
Let me put my private opinion about GM Foods. The new techniques for applying changes to DNA chains etc. in plants are no different from the mutations that Mother Nature performs on her own now and then in the same plants. That these natural mutations happen have long been known and proven. In fact it is quite probable that Wheat emerged from such a mutation 10K years ago. this is the most dangerously misinforming comment ive read in a long time.
by putting pesticide genes into corn , is NOT anything like a naturally occuring mutation.




These GM food manipulations just makes it much easier to choose exactly which mutations you would want as a scientist. But if we are doomed from any genetic change a scientist can do in a plant, then we are already doomed from the natural changes that happen. It will just take longer. Frankly I think it is extremely unlikely that humanity will become extinct because a terrible Franken-potato was created that eventually wiped out all known life. It just goes against all facts about evolution of life during billions of years here on Earth.
have you been reading from the monsanto handbook ?

The anti- GM Food activists have to come up with better arguments for why it is so dangerous. A probable scenario that makes sense from the facts we know about plant breeding today.
refer: link to digestive disorders associated with gm .
oh what monsanto and cnn didnt tell you about that ? :rolleyes:

littlesprout85
01-08-2009, 10:44 PM
Wow, Where to begin on this subject that Axioms has hand delievered to us here in ChessChats.

Being of plant origins,(sprout speaks for the plants) let meh just say that this is a touchy subject for da sprout.:doh:

Sprouty is very concern on this monkeying around with meh fellow botanical brotherhood.(sprout is an alien plant species) If we let them create Frankin potatoes where will the horror end, a Frankin Sprout :0

-Sprout85 =)

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2009, 02:34 PM
this is the most dangerously misinforming comment ive read in a long time.
by putting pesticide genes into corn , is NOT anything like a naturally occuring mutation.


Ax, do you know the difference between mutation and selection?

Axiom
02-08-2009, 06:21 PM
Ax, do you know the difference between mutation and selection?
yes , and putting pesticide genes in corn is neither natural mutation or selection.
(and the rise of digestive disorders i predict will be traced back to consumption of these pesticides - research this one yourself !)

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2009, 08:28 PM
yes , and putting pesticide genes in corn is neither natural mutation or selection.
(and the rise of digestive disorders i predict will be traced back to consumption of these pesticides - research this one yourself !)
For ages agronomists used selection and crossing to grow strains of food.
GM is essentially the same process, just quicker.
Being quicker has its benefits, as well as problems. There will always be some problematic strains, however media has been (and still is) blowing it out of proportion.

Axiom
02-08-2009, 09:01 PM
however media has been (and still is) blowing it out of proportion.
?? The mainstream media is deathly silent on the scientific debate .

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2009, 09:57 PM
?? The mainstream media is deathly silent on the scientific debate .
Do a google search on "gm food" and you'll see that your claim is not 100% correct.

Axiom
02-08-2009, 10:14 PM
Do a google search on "gm food" and you'll see that your claim is not 100% correct.

Given the importance of the subject ie. the food we will be eating ,. the degree of coverage on the scientific debate is disproportionately very low