'superwheat' that boosts crops by 30%

Page 3 of 3  


Slipped through a filter...
Let me offer for your consideration the Showa Denko incident as an explicit example of how bad things can happen when you're playing with plasm.
Admittedly, this one was in a vat and not a garden or farm but it was and remains a fair enough illustration of the kinds of screw-ups and for that matter cover-ups the profit motivated indulge in.
In this world of politics, profit takers, stupidity, cupidity and spin, it is entirely in our best interest to challenge GE technology and the opinions of true believers such as yourself.
And yes, back into the bin you go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

When are you actualluy going to bother to provide any information that is worth any form of debate? To date all you've done is make insulting comments. Nothing you've yet written indicates that you would be able to differentiate a gene from a rock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No- Like many typical aged Usenet numbskulls you manage to equate GMO with the practices of a company named Monsanto. You sir are a woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin. You probably believe in JEEBUS. Good luck with that.
If you eat anything that is processed in any way (including food in most restaurants), you are consuming GMO. Why do you need a lable to tell you that? I certainly don't much care about labels, but find them pretty useless. What does the label "organic" tell you? Do you "believe" such food is safer or more nutritious than GMO? Why? You have no basis to compare, and not enough intellectual curiosity to investigate with an open mind. Boooooooring.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rick wrote:

Nice reasoned response there.
D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Indeed. Sad innit........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You have no evidence to make that statement.
In his first sentence, Bob threw in a strawman that relates to a Monsanto product. Bob then started a new paragraph that mentioned GMO.
Even if English is not your first language, you should realise that unless or until Bob conjoins the two thoughts in one sentence then you are leaping to a conclusion for which you have no evidence. Bob may very well confused about the two but until you have more evidence to confirm bob's thoughts ont he subject you can't logically make the claims that you have done.
You sir are a

You are abusive and pretentious. You don't demonstrate logic or simple analytical skills.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is not, but I am comfortable with it.

Cite please (as you are wont to ask). I've certainly never seen this assertion before.

That is quite clear.

What does onthe mean?

And very tired of ignorant religious based thinking destroying our world

Your dazzling display of illogic has taken my breath away! Still, once in a while you post something worth reading, and so a response may be worthwhile. I like bread and pasta made with wheat. Many people do. In fact wheat accounts for a rather large percentage of human food. If you are one who eats wheat, what will you do if (realistically when) the only bread available is GMO? "The other thing to bear in mind, said Akhunov, is that "the pathogen races are evolving very fast." Since the discovery of Ug99, another five or six derivative races have emerged, he said. So not only must the search for new resistance genes continue, he said, but also "we need to come up with faster ways of responding."" Faith based fear is ignorant. Ignorance is a fatal flaw. This is a fight we cannot allow ignorance to win. Believe in your gods if you must, but at least try to understnd the science behind GMO in the absence of irrational fear. http://bit.ly/12pqJYC For those who wisely distrust mini-links: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36209/title/Fungus-Fighting-Genes/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rick wrote:

Once again you are claiming the high ground saying your critics' arguments are based on faith. You again pretend to be speaking with the voice of evidence and rationality.
In this thread it is plain for anybody to see that you have not provided one focussed response but wasted our time with personal attacks, vague generalisations and misdirection on to new topics when you have failed to say anything useful about the topics already in front of us.
You consistently accuse others of your own vices.
'Abusive and pretentious' - spot on.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Walks like a troll, talks like a troll. Hmmmmmmm?
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Rick Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:59:37 -0700 (PDT) The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious cult that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They will spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science. Interesting cult. Faith based science! ------ Bill Rick, face it, you offer no facts, and seem to assert that just because they are religious, they are wrong. In fact, the article made no religious appeal, but simply drew attention to a non-GMO wheat that yielded 30% more that standard wheat.
Real science is based on facts, yet you offer none. You seem more interested in disproving that a non-GMO, can out produce a GMO. Scientists aren't partisan. When their views are colored by ego, or money they cease to be scientists. ====== RIck Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:05:44 -0400 It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops, whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge, some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that makes you boooooooring. ----- Bill You didn't show our alleged ignorance of DNA. Perhaps you would care to allay our fears by explaining how genetic and epigenetic regualtion [sic] of gene expression preclude the production of exotic proteins that may lead to allergic reactions. Sexual breeding plants isn't genetic manipulation. Polyploids happen naturally. Mutagenesis is a reason for concern, and fortunately, is mostly restricted to rice. === Rick Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 No- Like many typical aged Usenet numbskulls you manage to equate GMO with the practices of a company named Monsanto. You sir are a woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin. You probably believe in JEEBUS. Good luck with that.
If you eat anything that is processed in any way (including food in most restaurants), you are consuming GMO. Why do you need a lable to tell you that? I certainly don't much care about labels, but find them pretty useless. What does the label "organic" tell you? Do you "believe" such food is safer or more nutritious than GMO? Why? You have no basis to compare, and not enough intellectual curiosity to investigate with an open mind. Boooooooring. ------- Bill Where to begin? Can you site a definition for "typical aged Usenet numbskulls"? What study are you referring to? Monsanto has a high profile because of its amount of lobbying, and it legal practices against farmers. <http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 What is your basis for characterizing David as ignorant, and deliberately uneducated. You must realize that such statements are the statements of trolls, or at best someone exceedingly adolescent. You know that you can't possible justify them without claiming to be omniscient and omnipresent. I'm pretty sure that is out of your league. What is GBUS?
As far as processed foods, the man is a gardener. His only weakness for processed food that is Bonne Maman Raspberry Jam which has no preservatives, no additives, no corn syrup, is sulfite-free and non-GMO. Personally, I rarely eat in restaurants, and I avoid processed foods. My bread is a locally baked baguette made from organic flour. The markets I go to either have organic sections for meat and produce, or the product is labeled with that information, and where it came from. Whether you find labels useful or not, is immaterial to me. As far as being able to compare I direct you to <http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/organic-farming/18027-organ ic-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html> and <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-9 3-unborn-babies.html#> and <http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Nutritional_Content_of_Organic_Food
You say its boring, but do you grow food? Do you know what fresh food tastes like? When your plants have a problem, what do you do, change the environment, or go for a chemical fix?
In any event, boring isn't an argument. It's an invitation to a flame war (not very good for arguments). =======

Bill Again, more combative words, and nothing to buttress your argument that GMO's are good for you.
You pose a hypothetical question about when GMO bread is the only bread to eat. Organic food is the fastest growing section of the market. GMOs don't yield more. GMOs are more resistant to some insects, but you will have to eat the toxins. GMOs have more resistance to glyphosate, which is toxic, and causing their targets plants to become resistant. I belie they are called Frankenweeds.
The is a more professional article on the Wheat Gene Sr35 at <http://phys.org/news/2013-06-resistance-gene-ug99-wheat-stem.html#nRlv There is no need to use GMO technology as the gene come from wheat, but it will still need to go throughout he trial phase as would ant other new cultivar. The Wheat Gene Sr35 could be breed into the new high yielding wheat from the National Institute of Agricultural Botany to give higher yield and greater resistance to rusts. This can be done with normal sexual breeding, and seeds selected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This would be more marketable to countries that won't import GMO produce.
You might take your own advice. "Faith based fear is ignorant. Ignorance is a fatal flaw. This is a fight we cannot allow ignorance to win. Believe in your gods if you must, but at least try to understnd [sic] the science behind GMO in the absence of irrational fear.
If you care to explain why GMOs are innocuous, please do so, but don't presume to be above reproach as authority needs to be questioned. So far you haven't made any scientific arguments in favor of GMOs, until you do I'll presume that you have none.
Your "content free" post hasn't added anything to the conversation, except to raise the specter of Lysenkoism. Please explain the influence of splicosomes on "epigenetic regualtion of gene expression" (DNA methylation, or histone modifications?). Or was this term used stochastically to obfuscate the lack of content in your post?
More to the point, you haven't refuted the work of Dr. Arpad Pusztai. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai>
You haven't refuted the work of Jeffrey M. Smith. <(Amazon.com product link shortened) dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid70652274&sr=1-1&keywords=S eeds+of+deception>
You haven't refuted the concerns of the Union of Concerned Scientists. <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genet ic-engineering/>
As for not communicating with, or educating <http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm that is a similar approach taken by the Church in the Middle Ages, whereas today's Catholics accept a heliocentric solar system, and Evolution.
If you truly believed in GMOs, you would have no fear of double blind feeding trials for GMOs. This is the gold standard for determining the safety of food products. Yet, to date there have been no double blind feeding trials for GMOs. We, the American public are the guinea pigs.
If you can reason, fine, but another personal attack will just find you in my KF.
GMOs, or at least some of them "may" be just fine, but at the present we are consuming them on blind faith. Isn't that what you were against?
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You may feel 'comfortable' with it, but based on what you have now written here a number of times, there is no evidence that you understand English well enough to respond cogently to what has been written.

I don't need to provide a cite given that I gave reasons for what I wrote. I will repeat it again though in greater detail since clearly you didn't understand what I wrote or why I wrote what I did the first time round.
In English, an idea expressed in one paragraph does not necessarily relate to any information contained in the following paragraph. It may do so, or it may not.
Bob's strawman comment in his first paragraph mentioned Roundup. Bob's second paragraph was about the testing of GMO and you shoving things in places where the sun doesn't shine. (I see that this suggestion by Bob about you shoving things seems to be emerging as a consensus amongst regular posters here).
Your response to Bob was that like "many typical aged Usenet numbskulls" he was equating "GMO with the practices of a company named Monsanto."
You have no evidence on which to make either of those claims. You don't know Bob's age. You concluded, that Bob had mixed up Roundup (a Monsanto product) with GMO. Bob may be a geriatric or he may be a really young dude with dreadlocks who hugs trees. Bob may have confused Roudnup with GMO but the only person who knows what Bob was thinking or how old Bob is at this stage is Bob.
You have no evidence for Bob's age or for your claim that Bob is confusing Monsanto with GMO.
You have a suspicion about Bob's age and you have a suspicion about Bob's confusing two different things. You expressed your suspicions as a certainty. Doing that is neither logical nor demonstrative of basic anaylitical skills.

It means you dont' know. You assume. You made statements based on your assumptions. I refuse to quote that ridiculous mantra about "to assume" and asses, but maybe someone will do so.

You are the ONLY person who has brought religion into the thread. Your first post mentioned 'faith based science'. Regardless of what you suspect are other poster's religious beliefs, you are not excused from presenting dispassionate or reasoned arguments to support your claims and nor does anyone else's reigion give you any license to be rude or abusive.

What specific comments did I make that you believe were illogical?
Still,

Attempted insult and lack of content noted.

Irrelevant and a strawman.

Where is your proof that anyone here is fearful, is ignorant or has any faith in anything?

Why don't you respond with information and reasoning rather than abuse, catch phrases and illogical assumptions?
Believe in your gods if you

I don't believe in any god. I am an atheist.
You might have been able to figure that out if you had either asked about my beliefs or had waited for evidence before leaping to erroneous conclusions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is just a childish reaction. You don't even address the subject, but attack the messenger instead.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/May2009-DoctorsWarn/ind ex.cfm
Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. ===== <http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706 J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726 (C)Ivyspring International Publisher Research Paper A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world.
Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded. ====== <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-9 3-unborn-babies.html#> GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies A landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of the chemicals. ===== <http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/31-need-gm/12344-high-y ield> Do we need GM? High yield ===== You should become familiar with the Pustai Affair <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusztai_affair> ==== <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genet ic-engineering/>
Health and Environmental Risks
While the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may produce new allergens and toxins, spread harmful traits to weeds and non-GE crops, or harm animals that consume them.
==== Lastly, In case you didn't see it
ALLERGIC REACTIONS
Do you know what foods you react to? One out of four people in the U.S. reports having some type of food allergy.21 Genetically engineered ingredients make matters worse in two ways.
First, shuffling genes among species causes an allergen, for example a nut allergen, to end up in food we've always thought is safe. Take what happened in 1996 when university researchers decided to check out a new genetically engineered soybean created by the Pioneer Hi-Bred International. The soybeans were engineered to contain a single gene from a Brazil nut. Since it's well known in the medical community that nuts can cause allergic reactions in people, the scientist decided to find out whether or not this single gene in the soybeans could cause a response in folks who were allergic to Brazil nuts. Incredibly, allergic reactions did occur from this one gene, as reported that year in the New England Journal of Medicine.22 For people who are fatally allergic to Brazil nuts, eating this genetically engineered soy could be lethal. It's important to remember that this allergy test was done independently and at the discretion of these scientists; it was not required by any regulatory agency of the U.S.
The second danger is that genetically engineering foods can provoke an entirely new set of allergies. Here's how it works: The genetic packages transferred into the cell encode a number of novel proteins unfamiliar to the host plant. The resulting combination of a foreign gene and the genetic material of the plant can set off an allergic reaction. For example, in November 2005, Australian researchers found that peas, genetically engineered with a bean gene, triggered allergic reactions in research animals.23 This was a surprise because the new gene in the peas was for a protein found in beans that does not cause any allergic reactions at all. How could these identical genes, one causing no allergies and the other causing allergies when engineered into a pea, have such a different impact? The same gene can produce slight variations of proteins in different plants--even in closely related plants. In the pea, the protein encoded by the gene was modified in a slightly different way than in the bean, and the new form of this protein was allergenic. So even when working with identical genes, the very process of genetic engineering can turn a non-allergenic gene into an allergenic one--a frightening prospect. Yet, this new finding should not come as a surprise. More than a decade ago, PDA scientists warned repeatedly that genetic engineering could "produce a new protein allergen," and they've demanded long-term testing for this hazard. Meanwhile, leaders at the FDA continue to ignore science and refuse to require solid testing of genetically engineered foods, exposing the public to these new and hidden allergens. ===== Please be better prepared, if you decide to enlighten us again.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That may very well be so, but this time they seem to be on the side of the angels, uh, so to speak. Whether they just got lucky, or were divinely inspired they are refering to a very important matter.
And yes, it is taken from the notoriously liberal Huffington Post, and was written by Jeffery Smith, a prominent anti-GMO advocate who wrote the book "Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating" by Jeffrey M. Smith <(Amazon.com product link shortened) dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid70652274&sr=1-1&keywords=S eeds+of+deception> (Available at a library near you.)
You really should look up Dr. Arpad Pusztai.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai> Pusztai's experiment was eventually published as a letter in The Lancet in 1999.[9] Because of the controversial nature of his research the letter was reviewed by six reviewers - three times the usual number. One publicly opposed the letter, another thought it was flawed, but wanted it published "to avoid suspicions of a conspiracy against Pusztai and to give colleagues a chance to see the data for themselves," while the other four raised questions that were addressed by the authors.[10] The letter reported significant differences between the thickness of the gut epithelium of rats fed genetically modified potatoes, compared to those fed the control diet.[9]
GMOs may turn out to be totally innocuous. Americans are basically the test animals to determine GMOs safety as food products. There are 2 types of poisoning, one is acute, where you get struck down as if by a bolt of lightening, and the other is chronic poisoning where a small amount of poison is ingested over a long period of time and may result in cancer, or some other withering away, idiocentric diseases, as in allergies.
I don't care that you aren't worried, because I'm worried, and I don't like the idea of being a test animal. Monsanto, et al. are trying to shove GMOs down our throats. They should identify their products, and let people choose. If after a period of time people come to accept GMOs, fine, the general population will have been saved from unreasonable testing, but that isn't what GMO producers are doing.
No GMO has been produced that has a larger yield that "natural" cultivars> There may be corn that grows better with ammonia, but that is destroying the topsoil, and is of benefit only to ADM, and Cargill.
You will find a list of companies that use GMOs in their refined, prepared foods here: <http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/04/02/boycott-monsanto-a-simple-list-o f-companies-to-avoid/>
Now you can support GMO products to your hearts content.
Bon appetit.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

And from the Union of Concerned Scientists
<http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genet ic-engineering/>
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup.
Americans are basically the

Well look on the bright side Billy, the rest of the world is grateful that so many US citizens are more than happy to eat whatever is put on their supermarket shelves without question or with only limited scrutiny. We who don't 'enjoy' the freedoms you 'enjoy' may yet garner some benefit from your guinea pig status.
Monsanto, et al. are trying to

Yep. That should be a basic consumer right and certainly is in some other nations.
If after a period of time people come to accept GMOs,

Nope. Ethics doesnt seem to be a work that is recognised in their business plan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote: ...

no idea where it started, but people wonder about what/how many fragments of DNA are caused by GM techniques that are not caused by more normal plant breeding methods.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is Upper Thrien Lake thawed out by now? How extensive is French culture in Alberta? You must know that the French don't like GMOs at all.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.