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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid70652274&sr=1-1&keywords=S
eeds+of+deception>