If I were to take a guess, I'd think it represented him stepping in to the defence of his chosen subject.HankMan said:
The Big Picture: Feeding Edge
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
PaulH said:
So it is the Drug Dealers fault that people spend thousands of dollars to buy their product. Thus it is the Drug Dealers responsibility and not the consumers responsibility when to stop selling the product. This is just a bad comparison, just saying.
As for deathrates, well we used to have the average lifespan of 60ish years old. I'm not saying that (What is GMO? I thought is was just an abbreviation to Genetically Modified Food, but well that is a different story.) modified food increased our lifespan, but it is not decreasing our lifespan. (stupid double negatives) See, again I notice your anger is more on how the economics of food genetics ****s up farmers, but not the genetics themselves. Yet your anger is also on foods getting tweaked with, which has no real reason to be hated.
The economics should be hated and changed. But you shouldn't hate the idea that a single piece of food could have more benefits than its original counterpart. To me this is like hating a multivitamin. You should just have 3 different vitamins and not 1 that has the 3 kinda argument.
Hmm... interesting presentation, but a little off the mark, I think.
Firstly, this:
I'm not arguing against GM foods, but they're not quite the same thing.
Also, this:
Defib is not the same as reanimating dead tissue.
Firstly, this:
There are some built-in safeguards to selective breeding that don't really exist with genetic engineering: the resulting embryo has to be viable and reproductively successful for it to work, so a lot of mistakes will get filtered out. Also, because it takes time, you have more chance of spotting something undesirable.messy said:
I'm not arguing against GM foods, but they're not quite the same thing.
Also, this:
Glad someone else picked up on this.PhiMed said:
Defib is not the same as reanimating dead tissue.
I thought that was they're job.Onyx Oblivion said:
And i'm not joking here. I seriously thought that was they're job.
I recently posted something in the Politics regarding the idea of a one world state and found it worth mentioning that most of the taboo and boogeyman nature of it come from a little science fiction writer born Eric Blair. Though his work was ver necessary at the time when fascism and communism really were becoming major threats to humanity, his shadow is still cast when it comes time to discuss international governments, or even to really act like anyone can ever trust a government (1).
This is a similar situation, though different. Progressives regularly fear things that aren't necessarilly organic, and that fear is justified when it comes to the topic of factory farming, but the genetic engineering of food doesn't qualify.
(1) As a son of a military couple, I can say with ease that, yes, you most certaiy can.
This is a similar situation, though different. Progressives regularly fear things that aren't necessarilly organic, and that fear is justified when it comes to the topic of factory farming, but the genetic engineering of food doesn't qualify.
(1) As a son of a military couple, I can say with ease that, yes, you most certaiy can.
Ehhh... overall I agree with you Bob, and I know you didn't have a lot of time to put the full argument in there for context, but you made some statements that weren't exactly true. Selective breeding isn't genetic engineering. The reason it really is genetic engineering instead of just rapid breeding is that they introduce traits into foods that probably would have never shown up there to begin with, and they do it in a way that would have been impossible typically.
The way it's done (and I'm simplifying) is they take something simple like a virus that adapts traits to itself very easily, and has it adapt the trait they are looking for into itself. Then they take a "gene gun" (not kidding, they refer to to thing as that) and blast the simple organism into the food that needs the new trait. The simple organism that has picked up the trait then basically drops off the new gene. So you could take a gene for weather resistance that existed in another food and put it in say.. a tomato. The largest scale deployment of this was the development of "round up ready" crops like corn and soybeans. While farmers used to have to work their asses off to keep large scale growing of these crops from being demolished by weeds and other plants, they can now just spray round up over the crop, and it will kill everything except the round up ready crops. It's pretty cool, though that tactic alone is capable of creating super weeds... however that isn't really the issue.
The hysteria comes from the FDA and how they decided to treat this new technology. Remember that scientists work hand in hand with engineers, business men, and shareholders. Now won't ever interact with all of those people, but their bosses do. When this new technology appeared, they realized very quickly how much hardship genetic engineering could eliminate. However, the FDA has principles about how they operate, and so did the scientists. You could not realistically perform long term testing on every new gene introduced, it would ensure that a product never went to market. So the FDA worked with all of the groups I mentioned and allowed GM foods to be protected by "substantial equivalence". That is what it sounds like, they said GM foods were essentially the same, and required no further testing. So scientists will go through the short-term testing periods for each gene only, leaving the long term effects of those foods in the air. This has led to people questioning whether these foods cause cancer or any other number of issues that we have run into for the last couple decades.
So are these foods good? Yes, I think so. However, they do have a number of very bad political effects attached to them. Food lobbies are huge, and those huge food lobbies have made it legal to patent any original genes they come up with. You can't patent a gene that is widely known in another plant, but things like round-up ready corn and soybeans are protected. This sounds good in concept, but it has led to many problems. Cross-pollination (which is very common among plants) of those plants is now recognized by the law as copyright infringement. Many farmers are now forced to use those crops exclusively for fear of their own plants being cross-pollinated and being taken to court. That sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. Monsanto, Cargill etc are always snooping around and making sure that their copyrights are protected because they make millions each year fleecing people. That same process is the same reason that there was such political fallout that resulted in a number of African nations from getting GM crops.
Well that was a horrifying text wall, and that was the simplified versions of everything... TL;DR version: GM foods = not that bad. GM politics = horrible protectionist garbage that needs to be done away with.
The way it's done (and I'm simplifying) is they take something simple like a virus that adapts traits to itself very easily, and has it adapt the trait they are looking for into itself. Then they take a "gene gun" (not kidding, they refer to to thing as that) and blast the simple organism into the food that needs the new trait. The simple organism that has picked up the trait then basically drops off the new gene. So you could take a gene for weather resistance that existed in another food and put it in say.. a tomato. The largest scale deployment of this was the development of "round up ready" crops like corn and soybeans. While farmers used to have to work their asses off to keep large scale growing of these crops from being demolished by weeds and other plants, they can now just spray round up over the crop, and it will kill everything except the round up ready crops. It's pretty cool, though that tactic alone is capable of creating super weeds... however that isn't really the issue.
The hysteria comes from the FDA and how they decided to treat this new technology. Remember that scientists work hand in hand with engineers, business men, and shareholders. Now won't ever interact with all of those people, but their bosses do. When this new technology appeared, they realized very quickly how much hardship genetic engineering could eliminate. However, the FDA has principles about how they operate, and so did the scientists. You could not realistically perform long term testing on every new gene introduced, it would ensure that a product never went to market. So the FDA worked with all of the groups I mentioned and allowed GM foods to be protected by "substantial equivalence". That is what it sounds like, they said GM foods were essentially the same, and required no further testing. So scientists will go through the short-term testing periods for each gene only, leaving the long term effects of those foods in the air. This has led to people questioning whether these foods cause cancer or any other number of issues that we have run into for the last couple decades.
So are these foods good? Yes, I think so. However, they do have a number of very bad political effects attached to them. Food lobbies are huge, and those huge food lobbies have made it legal to patent any original genes they come up with. You can't patent a gene that is widely known in another plant, but things like round-up ready corn and soybeans are protected. This sounds good in concept, but it has led to many problems. Cross-pollination (which is very common among plants) of those plants is now recognized by the law as copyright infringement. Many farmers are now forced to use those crops exclusively for fear of their own plants being cross-pollinated and being taken to court. That sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. Monsanto, Cargill etc are always snooping around and making sure that their copyrights are protected because they make millions each year fleecing people. That same process is the same reason that there was such political fallout that resulted in a number of African nations from getting GM crops.
Well that was a horrifying text wall, and that was the simplified versions of everything... TL;DR version: GM foods = not that bad. GM politics = horrible protectionist garbage that needs to be done away with.
Shit, I'm just done with finals. I do not fell like doing your research. The ENTIRE GENOME IS SCREWED OVER with the addition of the choice chemicals. The process of injecting the amino acids into the seed to produce the desired result is like trying to flip my kitchen switch with a howitzer: I might not need all the walls around the switch to remain intact, but how am I to know that one of those walls isn't the kitchen stove?
Plus, I've heard somewhere that purple carrots are much better for you.
Anyway, a very good "Big Picture", looking forward to next weeks!
Anyway, a very good "Big Picture", looking forward to next weeks!
Ok, by actually working at a lab that is involved in investigating bioinsecticides and their eventual use in crops, I have to say your statement is BS. They are not shitty food, or shitty cotton, or shitty anything. You probably wouldn't even be able to tell them apart from the unmodified one unless I told you which one is which. Aaaaand they do kill the insects. They kill them pretty damn well. So well, in fact, that the problem is that one is creating a very strong selective pressure that pushes the insect population into developing resitant traits. Which does happen. Every day faster. I have the data, the pictures and the bibliography. I will supply it if needed.theultimateend said:
The only REAL threat GM organisms pose to anything is to biodiversity. I will not say that's not true because that would be a lie. However, careful management of seeds and pollen reduces those risks.
EDIT: By the way, i'm talking about GM crops that produce proteins, not those coherced into manufacturing chemicals KNOWN to be harmful. That's just nonsense.
Lol. Sometimes you can, but I'd think being the son of a military couple would dissuade you from trusting the government. I refer you to...Austin Howe said:
Bikini atoll
the syphilis experiments
the LSD experiments
agent orange
etc. etc.
Your parents must have been officers. They're called GI's for a reason.
Also yes the genetic engineering of food definitely qualifies. Read just a few of the above posts, artificial genetic enhancement is far more dangerous than selective breeding.
Not very happy with this one Bob. This very glib presentation has been refuted by other posters far better than I ever could. If your problem is with hollywoodesque stupidity and mainstream media fear mongering, then yes I believe you've got something to argue. My question then would be, "Why the hell I should heed the advice of a gaming websites movie critic or a couple of conservative comedian/magicians on a topic so imporatant as the food we eat, how it affects our lives, and coporations dicking around with it?"
To provide some sort of counterpoint, the concern with GMOs is inadvertently creating an invasive species by making changes that, say, make an organism reproduce much faster than before, or allow it to avoid some of its usual predators (perhaps the changes that increase the nutrient content in foods also make its common predators unable to identify it, allowing it to spread very fast).
Invasive species have caused enormous amounts of damage over the course of history (just look at Australia's rabbit problem) and once released they're incredibly difficult to stop. The chances of inadvertently making a safe crop into an invasive species are low, but it can be very hard to test.
Another concern is that changes to the nutrient content of crops is that they will result in the crop having insufficient amounts of a currently unknown yet important nutrient. New discoveries about nutrition continue to this day, so it's something to consider when you start talking about replacing a nation's staple crop.
Ultimately, it comes down to how much risk you're willing to take, anyway, I thought this discussion could use another viewpoint.
Invasive species have caused enormous amounts of damage over the course of history (just look at Australia's rabbit problem) and once released they're incredibly difficult to stop. The chances of inadvertently making a safe crop into an invasive species are low, but it can be very hard to test.
Another concern is that changes to the nutrient content of crops is that they will result in the crop having insufficient amounts of a currently unknown yet important nutrient. New discoveries about nutrition continue to this day, so it's something to consider when you start talking about replacing a nation's staple crop.
Ultimately, it comes down to how much risk you're willing to take, anyway, I thought this discussion could use another viewpoint.
First point: I am not afraid of G.E. food.
Second point: It is actually risky doing G.E. in a lab the way you describe. Mainly because we don't understand genetics enough to know exactly what will happen. We can guess but we can never be sure. We may change corn to be bigger or easier to grow, but it may also turn it blue. It is slightly more unpredictable then controlled breeding. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make it, or eat it. The people that make a fuss don't understand this anyway so it's kind of moot.
A better way to put this is, controlled breeding is like a flip of the coin, it works or it doesn't. G.E. in a lab is like a multi sided die. You know how many sides it has, but not what numbers. So you don't know what will come out in the end. It doesn't mean you should be afraid of the result.
Second point: It is actually risky doing G.E. in a lab the way you describe. Mainly because we don't understand genetics enough to know exactly what will happen. We can guess but we can never be sure. We may change corn to be bigger or easier to grow, but it may also turn it blue. It is slightly more unpredictable then controlled breeding. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make it, or eat it. The people that make a fuss don't understand this anyway so it's kind of moot.
A better way to put this is, controlled breeding is like a flip of the coin, it works or it doesn't. G.E. in a lab is like a multi sided die. You know how many sides it has, but not what numbers. So you don't know what will come out in the end. It doesn't mean you should be afraid of the result.
The people against genetically modified foods will often site experiments and act as if these foods are meant for consumption. They are not, they are just experiments to better understand the genetics of the subjects.
Genetically engineered crops are the most heavily tested crops. They are regulated by the EPA, USDA, and the FDA. The EPA regulates them if there is a pesticide involved, the USDA for how they are grown and how it will effect the environment, and the FDA for food safety. It takes millions of dollars of testing and many years to be able to be approved as a commercial crop.
Bottled water is only regulated by the FDA but, tap water is regulated by the EPA.
Genetically engineered crops are the most heavily tested crops. They are regulated by the EPA, USDA, and the FDA. The EPA regulates them if there is a pesticide involved, the USDA for how they are grown and how it will effect the environment, and the FDA for food safety. It takes millions of dollars of testing and many years to be able to be approved as a commercial crop.
Bottled water is only regulated by the FDA but, tap water is regulated by the EPA.