Actually, from their 2005 desk calendar. Be glad you're a gardener. :-)
Genetically Modified Broccoli Shrieks Benefits at Shoppers
Bremerton, WA - A head of genetically modified broccoli shrieked its numerous benefits at shoppers Monday in a Seattle-area Safeway. "I contain
40 percent more vitamin A than non-modified broccoli!", the head screeched at terrified produce aisle customers. "I can fight off insects and disease without the use of pesticides!" Monsanto, which produced the vegetable, stressed that genetic-modification technology is still in its infancy, and that more pleasantly voiced broccoli should hit store shelves fairly soon.
Whenever I talk with the hysterical people this article is lampooing, my standard line is...
All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant methods.
I saw the thing I posted as a lampoon of the manufacturer, which is precisely what Monsanto is. You might want to read a bit more before being so sure about "the people doing it". A book called "The Botany of Desire" would be a good start. Easy reading, very informative.
It's "The Onion". Don't take it TOO seriously. Today, on their web site, they ran an article announcing the French's was coming out with disinfectant mustard. :-)
John Thomas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ook.org:
Uh huh, sure. Once upon a time there were three little piggies. Each one owned a house and each house was different, but since they were all called houses, that made them the same. No one knows what happened to the piggies because everyone was at the wolf's home having a barbeque. Some guests got food poisoning but nobody ever said anything.
Read? I've been working in this for over 20 years. With a PhD in a related field, I just might know what the hell I'm talking about, even more so than your average poster here. Just maybe.
If you want a good popular writer on the topic, try Peter Raven instead.
I propose, then, that you are too close to "the field" to see the simple logic you missed in this paragraph, written by you earlier:
"All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant methods."
Get back to me tomorrow after you've thought about it a bit, and I'll straighten you out. It involves a factor you cannot deal with in a scientific fashion.
Just maybe you're the King of Mars, since any claim of ultra-genius super-expertise self-importance attested tp on UseNet is about that easy to trump up. Just maybe your "related field" is bean-counting for Monsanto. Just maybe you're a vested propogandist, since Monsanto has instructed even its employees from the janitors on down to get on board & muddle & muddy any intelligent conversation they might not like when it crops up in public discussions. Just maybe several people 'round here are EASILY as intelligent as yourself & just as capable of understanding issues, even though you as the King of Mars personally do not think so.
Citing Peter Raven as your best-beloved commentator in love with Monsanto is like citing Moussalini as your ideal expert on world leadership. He's the "environmentalist" who persistently assaults environmental organizations. His wife (now ex-wife, ha on him) was the Monsanto Director of Public Policy, so the joke runs that even Peter Raven's sex-life is corporate sponsored.
Raven is pleased to boast "There is nothing I'm condemning Monsanto for." Nothing -- they're flawless at all times in all ways, they have never made a single error ever & never will. Not agent orange, not cover-ups of toxic spills that got them dragged into Federal court to lose big-time, not the world-devastating plan to "own" living germplasm so they can license the right of the world to even eat.
Monsanto is God's Good Heaven where Raven's concerned, so who better to take over control of our access to basic foods. No problems are fathomable from Monsanto developing indentured "customers" for sterile crops not to mention that said foods are developed not for flavor of nutrition but to be able to thrive in chemical soups. Well, if we'd only be smart enough to let Monsanto develop toxin-tolerant human beings to match their products we'd be in like flint,
No, nothing Monsanto has ever done in the past or is doing now will Raven ever even for a half-second find less than utopian perfection. They are above criticism. And being so, their next Agent Orange WILL reach our dinner tables without even momentary critical thinking about the repurcussions.
It's no joke, either, that Raven promotes Monsanto as God's Good Heaven. He is a die-hard Catholic & a major force in the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, through which he has promoted GMO & Monsanto at Vatican-sponsored seminars as saviors of mankind, as "Elpis" or what can be found in the Christian Gospels as "Hope." Without Monsanto there is no Hope, according to this religious crackpot propogandist whose corporate sponsors made him a millionaire, gave him a wife, & continue to fund all his pet projects.
And you better believe wholehearted corporate propogandizing has been profitable for Peter Raven. In exchange for his unwavering praise for Monsanto, Monsanto has become the primary donor to the Missouri Botanical Garden, the garden which is Monsanto's primary "bioprospector" since Raven became its Director. At last count three Monsanto bigwigs are Garden trustees & every decision made at the Garden is weighed against Monsanto's corporate interests.
The Garden's multi-million-dollar research center is called, ta-da, The Monsanto Center, where the development of toxin-tolerant GM foods is high on their agenda. Vested interests? "Just maybe." So thanks, Mr Thomas, for clarifying that a straight-head Monsanto propogandist who has scored millions upon millions of dollars specifically as a propogandist IS your idea of the ideal authority! It puts your own claim to King of Mars Smarter Than All Usenet expertise in perspective.
Gosh, got a mojo for Monsanto, by any chance? If collective thought is so great, that means Bush must be right in whatever he does too, since he just won the popular election last year. You must be in heaven with his policies :-)
P.S. Did you know Monsanto is broadcasting thoughts from the orbital mind control satelites? Better get on that, too!
Thanks for perfectly illustrating the point I was trying to make in my original post. Raven has done more for preserving diversity than a million bedwetting so called environmentalists who think the solution to every problem is imposing their views on poor rural people, while they commute in SUV's, overconsume, and work as hard as they can to alienate the very people who are in a position to solve problems.
I don't think most people have a problem with the use of genetic modification if they used dna already present in that particular species genome. That's the just producing a hybrid with hopefully less trial and error. However I do have a problem with using dna from an entirely different species to produce something that wasn't naturally possible.
For example tomatoes have been made frost resistant by splicing in a gene from a flounder that makes some sort of "antifreeze". Other things that concern me, is plants like maize/corn have been modified to the point where some variations are inedible by humans and others are outright toxic for human consumption. With the thousands of tons of corn produced every year around the world, it's not difficult for containers to get swapped and turn pharmaceutical corn into corn syrup.
Even with buffer zones, accidents are going to happen.
So, you don't understand why the forces which keep traditional hybrids within bounds are short circuited by Monsanto's methods? This is a yes or no question. Yes, you do understand. No, you do not. Yes or no.
|> > All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck |> > do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it |> > have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant |> > methods. |> |> I don't think most people have a problem with the use of genetic |> modification if they used dna already present in that particular species |> genome. That's the just producing a hybrid with hopefully less trial and |> error. However I do have a problem with using dna from an entirely different |> species to produce something that wasn't naturally possible.
You can relax that a little - there was a local project to insert a gene for rust resistance from a grass into wheat, to obviate the need for fungicides (very much needed in the UK). That is good genetic modification.
Leaving the gene for antibiotic resistance in, putting in a gene for herbicide resistance and so on (all of which came from very different organisms, often not plants) is another matter.
|> Even with buffer zones, accidents are going to happen.
Possibly catastrophic ones. For example, let's take a gene for (say) scorpion venom introduced into an oil seed plant (say rape or flax), on the grounds that it protects from insect attack, doesn't get into the seed, and breaks down with heat. Now, let's say that it escapes into the wild, crosses with wild species (both of which are near-certain), and starts to express in the nectar or pollen. The result could be a near wipe-out of almost all pollinating insects - and not JUST honey bees. Which would cause ecological and agricultural catastrophe.
It isn't likely, but it isn't impossible, either. And the cost is so large that a 0.0001% chance of it occurring is unacceptable.
I propose, then, that you are too close to "the field" to see the simple logic you missed in this paragraph, written by you earlier:
"All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant methods."
Get back to me tomorrow after you've thought about it a bit, and I'll straighten you out. It involves a factor you cannot deal with in a scientific fashion.
I saw the thing I posted as a lampoon of the manufacturer, which is precisely what Monsanto is. You might want to read a bit more before being so sure about "the people doing it". A book called "The Botany of Desire" would be a good start. Easy reading, very informative.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.