# GMO Awareness! How does it affect you and your frogs?



## dwdragon

I hope no one finds this post offensive or out of place. I choose to post it here as I know there are quite a few conservation minded individuals and groups in the dendro community. This also directly affects amphibians.


I'm wondering how many are aware of what is going on with Genetically Modified Organisms around the world.

I recently became aware of GMO's otherwise known as Genetically Modified Foods. Apparently this is something that has been going on for 15+ years. As I started to dig into the information my stomach has turned and it makes me doubt almost all the food in my kitchen for being safe to feed my kids. Not because of a lack of information but more over because of the information I found. I will precede this by stating I do not support animal testing. However, the information gathered from it is pertinent.

First off how this is linked to amphibians. "A commonly used pesticide known as atrazine can turn male frogs into females that are successfully able to reproduce, a new study finds." This is a quote from the article I have linked after this paragraph. Atrazine is used in at least one herbicide by Monsanto. Essentially the herbicide itself is able to force a change in DNA.
Pesticide Turns Male Frogs into Females | LiveScience


Scarily that is only the tip of the iceberg...

There is a study that was conducted in Russia on hamsters. The control group of hamsters that was fed GMO soy became completely sterile by the 3rd generation.
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/04/russian-biologists-gmo-foods-...

A study conducted over 2 years in France with rats showed a measurable increase in cancerous tumors and a change to the function of the rats organs that were fed GMO corn.






A European agency found traces of a new virus (Gene VI) in most GMO foods where it is not found in non-GMO crops.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gen...


GMO corn was modified specifically to create within it's kernels it's own pesticide meaning that when you eat it you are being dosed with pesticide. The other major reason many crops are being genetically modified is to resist toxic herbicides.
Major Pest May Be Resistant To Genetically Modified Corn 

(This is only 1 link chosen as it does not bash the fact that corn creates it's own pesticide there is a ton of information out there.)
GMO grains contain high levels of proteins that are connected with the cause of diseases such as Gluten intolerance and Celliac Disease.
GMO Linked to Celiac Disease


The medical community is not new to what they call miRNA. These are genetic instructions that they use for gene therapy. Modified miRNA's have recently been found in GMO food that no one is sure what long term effects they will have on our genetics at this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-IJikX1144


GMO plants can cross pollinate with non-GMO plants creating hybrids and dirtying the genetic makeup for those of us who do not want GMO foods. This happens naturally and is completely out of our control.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=genetically-modifi...


Monsanto owns patents for all it's genetically modified seed. So do the other biotechnology companies. Once a plant is determine to have been grown from a seed that contains their genetic modifications they can sue the person for royalties.
Monsanto takes over farmer in Supreme Court - YouTube

Monsanto one of the major corporations behind the pesticides, herbicides, and genetically modified seeds is the same corporation that produces growth hormone for cows and also brought us Agent Orange.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

We are still dealing with the effects of chemicals that have been banned for decades. Much of our produce contains higher than normal levels of arsenic. The arsenic is absorbed into the plant from the soil so even organic crops and possibly crops grown at home are affected.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/11/theres-arsenic-your...


I'm sure there is more but I'm on my first cup of coffee and I think that's enough for now. If all this or any of this is as disturbing to you as it is me you are probably wondering what can be done. Some of those links state the high percentage that GMO's have on our supermarket shelves, 70% or more. 



I have decided to join the worldwide protests on May 25th. The only thing I have asked my friends and acquaintances or really anyone I pass on the street is to know why the protest is so important. We already have the Monsanto Protection Act that has been signed in the US. There are more bills being put up for vote and attached as riders to make sure that we don't have a choice in the future. If all of this really bothers you I'd ask you consider going to a rally or being part of the online rally. Every person counts. 1+1= 2, 2+1=3. I'm sure you get the point adding 1 person at a time you eventually get to massive numbers. Here is the information.

47 Countries, over 327 Marches Globally
Join your local March!
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto
Refer to A Friend: http://on.fb.me/1252jB6
Full Info Sheet: http://bit.ly/12AjXh1
OUR Webpage: March Against Monsanto
Event List; http://bit.ly/16W7tAO
Official March Against Monsanto Song: Jacob Green THE MARCH - YouTube
World Event MAP: March Against Monsanto - Event Map


----------



## James

I believe that there are certain modifications that are only speeding up natural processes but when things cause side effects like the increase in tumors in the rats or causing sterilization of gerbils I feel that lines have to be drawn. But then again what effects are _not_ being noticed in humans? What is simply being written off as diabetes or cancer when it could be caused by something like this? I don't think that these engineered foods have been regulated enough for us to be so sure about their safety.


----------



## SDRiding

Bravo man. All of the attention is actually getting noticed by the Senate and hopefully they repeal the "Monsanto Protection Act".

Senator Pushes Amendment To Repeal Monsanto Protection Act


----------



## dwdragon

SDRiding that is correct! However, it's not the end of the road fix. In the end even if the Monsanto Protection Act is repealed we still have GMO crops that we eat every single day. 

There is the alternative of buying organic for those that can afford it but it doesn't stop the environmental harm done by GMO crop farming and there are a lot of people that simply can't afford to buy Organic. I personally don't think Organic would be so expensive if it were the norm rather than the exception. It's all supply and demand and convincing the farmers that GMO crops aren't doing them any favors.


----------



## kinhawk

I have been preaching this and other food issues to everyone within earshot. Unfortunately most of the people I try to discuss these topics with do not want to hear it. It's as if people don't care about long-term health concerns and care more about taste and convenience. "If it doesn't hurt me as soon as I eat it, then it must be alright." On the flip side, more and more people are being forced to make the right decisions, due to food-related diseases becoming more prevalent.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Propaganda...

Have you read that rat study? It was horribly flawed does not even meet basic controls.


----------



## SDRiding

The issue is with the law that gives them protection from litigation. It was hidden inside of a much larger bill that essentially needed to be passed. If they want to experiment with GMO, go right ahead. But they need to be held liable if they cause any damage. 

My problem with most GMO in general is that it's just not needed. It's a genetically modified version of corn that can withstand roundup. So you get a double dose of experimental science. Yippee.

And don't fall victim to the same mentality every society before us has, that we are at the height of human knowledge. Things that we really don't understand need to be approached with extreme caution. Look back at everything that everyone said "was safe and couldn't possible cause harm".


----------



## oconnell

While I stand with you in supporting a repeal of Section 735 (the Monsanto Protection Act), I don't think this post belongs in the science section since it isn't directly about the science of frogs.

Regarding the so-called frog connection - chemicals that alter the gonadal sex of an animal does not "change" its DNA. Atrazine likely interacts with sex steroid hormone systems. All embryos have the ability to become male or female. Switching on one hormonal system over a different hormonal system determines whether ovaries or testes will be made. If a disruption to this developmental pathway is early enough (before gonadal differentiation), a genetic female can make testes and a genetic male can make ovaries. This sometimes happens in humans (see XY genetic males but phenotypic females with androgen receptor mutations). The ability to switch the gonadal sex of poikilotherms by "turning on" different hormone associated gene modules has been known for decades. This isn't a GMO problem... it is a general endocrine disrupting chemical problem (see Rachel Carson's Silent Spring which brought reforms on this front).

That said, a healthy skepticism of the long-term health safety of genetically modified foods is laudable, but that same skepticism should be leveled at the studies that claim to find them dangerous. Many of these have poorly constructed control groups and cherry-picked results, as others here noted. 
Science Is Laughing At Us | SLEUTH 4 HEALTH.

Nature, one of the top 3 science journals in the world, recently published a special detailing the science behind the ills and goods of GMOs that may be of interest to you.
Case studies: A hard look at GM crops : Nature News & Comment

Regarding your link about Celiac Disease and GMOs- your link says "In summary, glutamine is an amino acid found in GMO seeds which turns into plants (food) we, and animals we eat, consume. Glutamine is destroying our health! ". From a scientific standpoint this article is ridiculous and presents no compelling evidence. Glutamine is an amino acid that makes up proteins in every living organism. Glutamate also functions as a neurotransmitter that allows you to form memories... definitely not a categorically bad thing to have around. Also GMO wheat lines are not commercially grown in the US.
USDA ERS - Wheat: Background

Finally, regarding the link between GMOs and cancer - there are many flaws in that study that makes the results doubtful.
Does genetically modified corn cause cancer? A flawed study fails to convince. - Forbes

Basically, scientists just don't know how long term GMO use will effect animal (including human) health and well-being. I agree Monsanto is an evil corporation but that doesn't mean GMOs are evil. There are lots of non-profit scientists making GMOs to make the world a better place. I'm not talking about the GMOs that synthesize pesticides. I'm talking about drought or flood resistance rice that help prevent food shortages in parts of the world that are already malnourished (see Pam Ronald's work). Or trying to change the amino acid sequence in a few proteins in wheat so that people with Celiac Disease can enjoy a beer.


----------



## RobR

SDRiding said:


> The issue is with the law that gives them protection from litigation. It was hidden inside of a much larger bill that essentially needed to be passed. If they want to experiment with GMO, go right ahead. But they need to be held liable if they cause any damage.
> 
> My problem with most GMO in general is that it's just not needed. It's a genetically modified version of corn that can withstand roundup. So you get a double dose of experimental science. Yippee.
> 
> And don't fall victim to the same mentality every society before us has, that we are at the height of human knowledge. Things that we really don't understand need to be approached with extreme caution. Look back at everything that everyone said "was safe and couldn't possible cause harm".


----------



## Dendro Dave

I'm generally for science making things better....when it is safe, but sadly there isn't always adequate testing or regulation.

Anyways here is a related thread...
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...nic-pets-plants-glowing-frogs-especially.html


----------



## hypostatic

Wow. I'm gonna preface this by stating that I am a molecular biologist (which means I know a lot about genetics). I deal with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) on a daily basis, and I modify organisms genetically quite frequently.

For the most part, there is nothing inherently bad/evil about GMOs. Humans have been playing with the genetics of our livestock and crops for thousands of years. But it's only been in the last few decades that we have been modifying our food using targeted molecular approaches. People don't understand what these scientists who are playing god in their laboratories are doing; and what people don't understand they think is bad or evil. For the most part scientists who create GMOs are trying to do what every farmer wants to do: make a crop that's hardier, tastier, and healthier. And I believe for the most part GMOs are accomplishing that goal.

The one exception to this is Monsanto. They are pure evil. What they do as a corporation is despicable. And as a scientist, I find it outrageous that they've patented LIFE.

And some comments to the OP:
Pesticides are not GMOs
Comments on "Gene VI". It's not harmful or a cause for worry.
Gluten is the protein that causes symptoms in people with Celiac Disease. It's what makes pasta/bread taste good. Non-GMO grains like wheat contain gluten naturally, and will cause symptoms in people with Celiac Disease. Learn more here.


----------



## dwdragon

Thank you for pointing out that 3 of the 11 points made may be invalid. I will keep that in mind for the future.

The reason I posted this in the Science & Conservation section is because it does contain scientific information (even disregarding the 3 items you mentioned) and for me it is largely a conservation effort.

GMO crops and the chemicals they were built to resist do have a real ecological impact. The study regarding the affects of atrazine on amphibians has been available for quite some time. As with most studies there are other studies that refute it. I tend to error on the side of caution. Herbicides / pesticides are not a requirement to maintain life and there are alternatives.

There are the current questions as to whether GMO crops and the chemicals used with them are fully or partly responsible for the decline in the honey bee.

The actual last straw for me is the fact that it's almost impossible for us to turn back now. Give it a few more years and we won't be able to. Nature will have taken over and cross pollination will mean that GMO's won't be avoidable in the US. This is a type of plant genocide. Super weeds and the extinction of the naturally occurring species. 

Once that happens whoever owns the patent on the GMO seed owns us. Very plain very simple no scientific study needed. 

I apologize that some of the studies I posted may be invalid. I have spent a few weeks trying to dig into this. 

I remembered today that quite a few years ago I read up on the affects of atrazine on frogs and when I found out it was included in the chemicals used on GMO crops I thought this community may be interested.

At this point after having an "anonymous rider" attached to a bill that if it hadn't been passed would have been "bad", to say it nicely, makes me a bit wary of any information from any US news source or government agency regarding the subject.


----------



## Pubfiction

I think that ethically we should all be for GMOs, Genetic engineering provides the best chance humans have to create a sustainable future. Is it all perfect now? no, but we are far better off now that we ever were before. This time around with GMOs we at least have organizations checking their safety where as in the early days of pesticides most things had little to no oversight at all. 

Its possible with GMOs to get a plant to produce an insecticide in it, and not only in it but also targeted. IE lets say that an insect only attacks the leaves, you can get the plant to produce the insecticide only in the leaves. Now try doing that with spray on chemicals. Basically its more targeted that means less insecticide falling all over surrounding plants and animals. And also a more consistent dose. Depending on the case it might lead to slower development of resistance. 

Also its possible with GMOs to do much more ethical generation of traits. In the past how did we get an animal that produced a good amount of meat, well we hybridized, line bred, and in the process we might slaughter and waste millions of animals for very slow progress. And who knows what was lost along the way? Many people discuss how various hybridized crops lack much of the nutritional value and resistance to disease and such that their closer to wild counterparts have. But we cant get enough production out of the wild counter parts after thousands of years of hybridization have separated them. With genetic engineering we can start to figure out what gives certain traits and either give them to the wild species to make it more viable for agriculture or give them to the hybrids to make them more nutritional or disease / environment resistant. 

We will probably find out years down the road their are some consequences for mistakes we made now. But we cant really be scared of that. We have to stay diligent and test and retest as much as we can but ultimately what is killing most American's now probably just their own horrible eating habits and lack of activity unrelated to any specific chemical.

Remember there is always a profit motive to make something seem safer, but think about the other side too. There is almost always a profit motive to scare people as well. Scientist that make controversial claims are almost always awarded with grants to follow up their research and given how long it takes for them to be debunked it could save their career, or secure them tenure. Take the monarch butterfly vs BT corn fiasco, or look at the autism from vaccines fraud. But the way things work now days information travels almost too fast. Bad science gets out and propagates almost quicker than good science. And there was no reward in place for researchers who said well it looks like its still safe. Both of those scientific scares were proven to be wrong or not realistic later on but to this day it seems like more common folks still believe the debunked science and are scared.


----------



## Dendro Dave

We need to be wary, we need to be smart and careful...but we also need to do these things. Tech is our only chance now...short of just cancelling the industrial revolution, throwing away all the text books and going back to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle.... Tech is the only way we'll reverse the damage we've done in time for this planet to still be habitable to most life...or survive ourselves once we've rendered it uninhabitable by anything else 

I'm pretty much a Transhumanist so I'm basically all for this stuff as long as we proceed carefully. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism


----------



## dwdragon

hypostatic said:


> Wow. I'm gonna preface this by stating that I am a molecular biologist (which means I know a lot about genetics). I deal with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) on a daily basis, and I modify organisms genetically quite frequently.
> 
> For the most part, there is nothing inherently bad/evil about GMOs. Humans have been playing with the genetics of our livestock and crops for thousands of years. But it's only been in the last few decades that we have been modifying our food using targeted molecular approaches. People don't understand what these scientists who are playing god in their laboratories are doing; and what people don't understand they think is bad or evil. For the most part scientists who create GMOs are trying to do what every farmer wants to do: make a crop that's hardier, tastier, and healthier. And I believe for the most part GMOs are accomplishing that goal.
> 
> The one exception to this is Monsanto. They are pure evil. What they do as a corporation is despicable. And as a scientist, I find it outrageous that they've patented LIFE.
> 
> And some comments to the OP:
> Pesticides are not GMOs
> Comments on "Gene VI". It's not harmful or a cause for worry.
> Gluten is the protein that causes symptoms in people with Celiac Disease. It's what makes pasta/bread taste good. Non-GMO grains like wheat contain gluten naturally, and will cause symptoms in people with Celiac Disease. Learn more here.


Sorry I was typing my other response as you responded. 

I know pesticides are not GMO's. Some GMO's just have the ability to create their own pesticides. From Monsanto's website "Crops with a _Bt_ trait have been modified to produce a protein that is toxic to various forms of insect larvae." Protein or not it's still toxic to various forms of insects aka insecticide aka pesticide. 

Celiac was one I wasn't entirely certain of myself. I've read conflicting information stating it's a growing concern recently and other information stating it started sometime back in the 1950's. I've been trying to find more information. One thing I've noticed is that most studies have been done outside the US.

I noticed you didn't comment on the miRNA I'm actually quite interested in what your take is on that.

All in all yes the second worst part is Monsanto's patent. The worst part is allowing anything that has been genetically modified to reproduce itself in nature. Terminator genes are not the answer unless they keep the plant from producing pollen which would be counter productive to it bearing fruit.


----------



## hypostatic

The problem isn't GMOs. It's Monsanto and what it's doing. They lobby and manipulate the government into doing their bidding, and push poorly developed products into the market and bully farmers into buying them. And as previously stated, their poorly designed product can have actual environmental impacts.

And it really bugs me that Monsanto gives GMOs such a bad rap. They design a crop that doesn't just have a pesticide on the surface of the food you're eating, but _infused_ inside of every part of it. They do things half-a**ed, and it's just shameful.

I think like 90% of the food in the supermarket is GMO? The vast majority of these foods are just as healthy (if not more) than non-GMO foods.

Also, a note on pesticide use:
In short, pesticide use is necessary for the way crops are currently grown in the majority of the US (and most other places too). Crops are usually grown as monocultures -- which usually means one field will have one type of crop. Let's say they're apples. This field of apples will usually only be one cultivar; let's say Fuji. Fuji apples are propagated via a grafting/cloning method, and this means that all the Fuji apple trees in the field are genetically identical. If a pest comes along that one tree is susceptible to, it means all of the trees in the field are equally susceptible. One lone pest is therefore able to completely wipe out a crop. One example of this in history is how the potato blight caused potato famine in Ireland in the 1800s.
Because our crops are grown in a monoculture fashion, they basically have to be treated with chemicals in order to protect them against pests they have no defense against.


----------



## SDRiding

hypostatic said:


> The one exception to this is Monsanto. They are pure evil. What they do as a corporation is despicable.


This is one thing I think everyone can agree on!


----------



## Dendro Dave

dwdragon said:


> All in all yes the second worst part is Monsanto's patent. The worst part is allowing anything that has been genetically modified to reproduce itself in nature. Terminator genes are not the answer unless they keep the plant from producing pollen which would be counter productive to it bearing fruit.


I don't know enough about Monsanto to talk about it really, as for the the part about the worst thing being to allow anything that has been genetically modified to reproduce itself though I think that is a bit broad...there are instances where that may be necessary and relatively safe....and in the future those instances might be more plentiful.

We may find that we have to start engineering species that can survive pollution, or disease or use genetically modified self reproducing organisms to control other organisms because natural predators or controlling factors are no longer present. Is it better if we never have to do those things ya...but chances are we will have to...so it is about doing it smart and carefully and only when we must. (IMO)


----------



## hypostatic

dwdragon said:


> I know pesticides are not GMO's. Some GMO's just have the ability to create their own pesticides. From Monsanto's website "Crops with a _Bt_ trait have been modified to produce a protein that is toxic to various forms of insect larvae." Protein or not it's still toxic to various forms of insects aka insecticide aka pesticide.


Yeah, as with all things Monsanto, I don't think this is good. I also don't like pesticides in general. They are poisons -- neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors, yadda yadda. I try to avoid them best I can. Which is why washing your fruits and veggies is so important 




dwdragon said:


> I noticed you didn't comment on the miRNA I'm actually quite interested in what your take is on that.


I tried watching the video you linked to, but it was extremely biased, so it was painful for me to watch. So I basically just skipped to the portions of the video were the dude was showing the highlighted portion of the research paper. I'm not entirely sure what the dude was saying but I'll give you a gist of what the paper's abstract said: rice lowers LDL cholesterol (the bad type of cholesterol), and the way it does that is through miRNA. I would assume this is a positive thing. The abstract of the paper in no way, shape, or form says that miRNAs are bad for you. The research paper probably doesn't mention GMOs. Whatever the dude decided to extrapolate from that simple abstract I can't really comment on.

I have actually done research involving miRNAs. They're usually used to "silence" a gene's activity. In the paper's instance, the miRNA in question "turns off" the gene that makes LDL, and as a result your LDL levels are lowered. Anyway, from MY experience at least, miRNAs are pretty specific in what they do -- they decrease the activity for a specific target gene.

As far as GMOs and miRNAs go, they shouldn't have any extra miRNAs that the "natural" crop doesn't have. Like, for the Bt crops, I woudn't imagine that they make any miRNAs that the regular crops don't make. They'd have to put any extra miRNA genes into the crop for the crop to make any new ones. And the main reason I don't think they have any extra miRNAs is because it takes extra work to put a functional miRNA gene into the mix haha.

EDIT:

Ok. I decided to suck it up and watch a bit more to be more helpful. The guy in the video states that the miRNAs in GMOs can cause you to become a "pesticide factory". WOW. This is ridiculous on so many levels. The biggest reason being that miRNAs are basically gene dimmer switches. They don't hijack your cells' machinery and cause them to make things (like pesticide proteins!) that your cells don't have the code to make! This guy is a hack. Please don't listen to him.


----------



## Roadrunner

GMO's are NOT healthier than normally grown crops. Most are not as drought resistant and don't fill the yields regular crops adapted to local environments can. They are introducing genetic crosses that do not occur in nature and nature will respond to them. I can't believe a board so against hybridization has no problem w/ crossing plants that would never cross and instilling animal genes into plants especially in the food WE eat.



hypostatic said:


> The problem isn't GMOs. It's Monsanto and what it's doing. They lobby and manipulate the government into doing their bidding, and push poorly developed products into the market and bully farmers into buying them. And as previously stated, their poorly designed product can have actual environmental impacts.
> 
> And it really bugs me that Monsanto gives GMOs such a bad rap. They design a crop that doesn't just have a pesticide on the surface of the food you're eating, but _infused_ inside of every part of it. They do things half-a**ed, and it's just shameful.
> 
> I think like 90% of the food in the supermarket is GMO? The vast majority of these foods are just as healthy (if not more) than non-GMO foods.
> 
> Also, a note on pesticide use:
> In short, pesticide use is necessary for the way crops are currently grown in the majority of the US (and most other places too). Crops are usually grown as monocultures -- which usually means one field will have one type of crop. Let's say they're apples. This field of apples will usually only be one cultivar; let's say Fuji. Fuji apples are propagated via a grafting/cloning method, and this means that all the Fuji apple trees in the field are genetically identical. If a pest comes along that one tree is susceptible to, it means all of the trees in the field are equally susceptible. One lone pest is therefore able to completely wipe out a crop. One example of this in history is how the potato blight caused potato famine in Ireland in the 1800s.
> Because our crops are grown in a monoculture fashion, they basically have to be treated with chemicals in order to protect them against pests they have no defense against.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

You so realize that the food we currently grow and eat, hybrids, was never found in nature either, right? Heck, those are GMO's as well.

I'll never understand someone's "biological" reasonings against GMOs. We're still working with what's there, except we can select for a single gene, and insert it, instead of rolling the dice and see what we get (the case with cross breeding). It lets us weed out the undesirable genes and keep only the good ones.

I do find it odd that in all my years I've never met a higher degree biologist against the idea of GMO's. Sure, they are against individual GMO varieties, but not all of them. Says something, no? 

I think anti-GMO is the "in" thing now, just like anti-vaccine movement. Both are seriously flawed and as long as they continue to use bad studies to support their stance, I'll never take them seriously.


----------



## epiphytes etc.

The grain we've been growing and eating for thousands of years has plenty of naturally occurring gluten. It's the binding protein that makes flour doughy. It also does not just affect those with celiac disease. A high gluten diet does cause swelling of joints and stiffness, not to mention constipation, in a large number of people. The fact is that grains, mostly wheat and corn (yes, corn contains a type of gluten) are being genetically modified to contain excessive amounts of the protein, allowing for cheaper fillers in processed foods.


----------



## epiphytes etc.

dwdragon said:


> I know pesticides are not GMO's. Some GMO's just have the ability to create their own pesticides. From Monsanto's website "Crops with a _Bt_ trait have been modified to produce a protein that is toxic to various forms of insect larvae." Protein or not it's still toxic to various forms of insects aka insecticide aka pesticide.


I wouldn't worry so much about this one in particular. BT is a bacteria, Bacillis thuringensis, that effects only invertebrates. I use two different subspecies myself, B.t. isrealensis are the mosquito dunks marketed for ponds (and are great for brom collections too, BTW), and B.t. thuringensis is what I spray on my grapes and Passifloras to keep their particular pest in check. They are eaten by the insect, then they release a protein that basically shuts down the insect's gut, killing it. Crops containing this gene are going to be a lot safer than those sprayed with traditional insecticides.


----------



## Roadrunner

Hybrids not found in nature? We're the product of hybridization. Ever have your genes sequenced to find out what percent you are neanderthal? 
Naturally these crosses happen and NATURE decides whether they have a place, if not they die out. We so arrogantly think we can bust that chain? If you make a more nutritious tapioca root you don't think a bug is going to find it and use it? Then we have to come up w/ another gene to input so that the chemical we spray for that bug can be handled by the plant. All the while the bugs that get exposed and live reproduce and adapt to the changing environment(chemical sprays), then we have to change the plant and expose ourselves to another chemical or modification. Ad infinitum or until we perish.
That's why I don't like GMO's. There is no such thing as a free lunch and nature is going to kick our asses if WE don't start adapting.



Blue_Pumilio said:


> You so realize that the food we currently grow and eat, hybrids, was never found in nature either, right? Heck, those are GMO's as well.
> 
> I'll never understand someone's "biological" reasonings against GMOs. We're still working with what's there, except we can select for a single gene, and insert it, instead of rolling the dice and see what we get (the case with cross breeding). It lets us weed out the undesirable genes and keep only the good ones.
> 
> I do find it odd that in all my years I've never met a higher degree biologists against the idea of GMO's. Sure, they are against individual GMO varieties, but not all of them. Says something, no?
> 
> I think anti-GMO is the "in" thing now, just like anti-vaccine movement. Both are seriously flawed and as long as they continue to use bad studies to support their stance, I'll never take them seriously.


----------



## SDRiding

I don't think the idea of GMO is bad, but I do realize that we don't know as much as we think we do. We are seriously lacking in aggregate studies, which is something to consider for the froggies as well! 

You wake up in the morning, grab your new fancy GMO apple that can't brown that has been coated in pesticides and rinse it off in your fluoridated water that contains chlorine and chloramines that comes from PVC pipes that are leeching vinyl chlorides and organotins while sitting down on your couch built with formaldehyde treated lumber and polyurethane cushions doused in fire retardants. 

And we really don't _need _GMO yet. If anything we need a way to make Big Macs taste bad. Starvation in the world is caused by the actions of politically manipulative governments, not a lack of food. 

I buy all of my produce at our local farmer's markets. I mainly do it because I like to support small business, but it really does taste better! 

The two people who seem to have some first hand experience with the subject have said the same thing, "GMO's seem safe, but we haven't tested the long term effects."

I won't even touch the quagmire that is human nutrition...


----------



## Roadrunner

Another problem w/ that theory is that WE'RE choosing the genes. we don't know all the possibilities. The environment does. Thru selecting what's naturally in the pool under the conditions they'd grow in, in each respective local climate in the country, you'll come up w/ a different set of genes for each local condition they have to overcome. By trying to force one strain on the whole country is just stupid. But that's what happens when companies try to control markets instead of catering to the needs of the farmer. 
By saying we're manipulating nature anyway by making hybrids your not proving anything. Just because I let him get up my shirt now I have to sleep w/ him? Same logic. 

A lot of higher degree climatologists believe we are responsible for global warming, that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. Could mean we are 90% responsible or 10% responsible. 

We were never healthier in our history that right before we started agriculture and our nutrition and health have been going downhill ever since. We consume way more than we need because of the "abundance" we've created. When we just do things because we can and don't think of the implications and what's happened around us we can end up somewhere we really didn't want to be.



Blue_Pumilio said:


> You so realize that the food we currently grow and eat, hybrids, was never found in nature either, right? Heck, those are GMO's as well.
> 
> I'll never understand someone's "biological" reasonings against GMOs. We're still working with what's there, except we can select for a single gene, and insert it, instead of rolling the dice and see what we get (the case with cross breeding). It lets us weed out the undesirable genes and keep only the good ones.
> 
> I do find it odd that in all my years I've never met a higher degree biologist against the idea of GMO's. Sure, they are against individual GMO varieties, but not all of them. Says something, no?
> 
> I think anti-GMO is the "in" thing now, just like anti-vaccine movement. Both are seriously flawed and as long as they continue to use bad studies to support their stance, I'll never take them seriously.


----------



## hypostatic

frogfarm said:


> GMO's are NOT healthier than normally grown crops. Most are not as drought resistant and don't fill the yields regular crops adapted to local environments can. They are introducing genetic crosses that do not occur in nature and nature will respond to them. I can't believe a board so against hybridization has no problem w/ crossing plants that would never cross and instilling animal genes into plants especially in the food WE eat.


By "healthier" I originally meant more nutritious for people to eat. And by nutritious I mean a higher relative amount of nutrients like vitamins or essential amino acids. Here are a few examples:
Soybeans that produce healthier oils
Cassava with increased vitamins, minerals, and decreased cyanide
Corn with 169x increase in beta carotene, 6x vitamin C, and 2x folate

I don't see how anyone would argue that these are less nutritious.



> Most are not as drought resistant and don't fill the yields regular crops adapted to local environments can.


I believe you are saying here that GM crops themselves aren't as healthy/have lowered fitness than non-GM crops. I would disagree with this as well. Take for example Monsanto's Bt corn. These corn plants are MUCH better suited to their environment than the non-GM corns. Since they're resistant to the pests that would attack it otherwise, GM corn can put all of it's energy into growth and seed production. Since they're not being attacked/eaten by all kinds of pests, they actually end up having a higher yield than the non-GM corn (although the intrinsic yield of both would probably be the same). And for general health I think it could be argued that the GM-corn is a much, MUCH hardier plant. And since these plants are generally hardier and higher yielding, this is this the reason why farmers end up switching to the Bt-corn. Also check out GM drought-tolerant corn
.

The problem with your "natural" argument is that it's *not *the environment that's choosing the genes for our crop. In non-GM crops we're choosing the genes as well. But unlike the environment that selects for higher general fitness, humans tend to select for higher general palatability (tastiness). We select for plants that make better tasting/looking fruit, not for general hardiness. You probably wouldn't recognize wild corn from before it was domesticated. And since our crops originate from different parts of the world and transplanted to wherever humans take them, in most cases they are NOT well suited to local environments. Which results in most of our crops being plagued by bugs, disease, drought/heat wherever we take them. If NATURE had its way, most of our crops wouldn't exist in the first place, and those that currently exist would be wiped out by bugs/disease/local weather. The only thing keeping nature at bay is the hard work of farmers, and the innovations of agricultural technologies.


----------



## Roadrunner

Ok. some are more nutritious if modified that way but how do they perform in the field and what do they give up to produce the extra vits, etc.

And how are Bt toxins going to affect us in the long run. What about the bees that gather the Bt corn pollen? Your looking at certain traits taken from the whole and in general there are better and safer ways to achieve better and more plentiful food. And as has been stated, there isn't a food shortage so why do we need to increase our chemical use, GMO technology and lowering of the price and quality of food?

Right now plants are chosen for ease of harvest and nutritional profile is suffering because of it. If you choose local seeds that have been grown for generations in that climate w/ those predators the plants find ways to defend themselves. If you choose for local hardiness it leads to less problems.

Believe what you want though and I'll do things the way I think is best and we'll just hope I'm wrong.



hypostatic said:


> By "healthier" I originally meant more nutritious for people to eat. And by nutritious I mean a higher relative amount of nutrients like vitamins or essential amino acids. Here are a few examples:
> Soybeans that produce healthier oils
> Cassava with increased vitamins, minerals, and decreased cyanide
> Corn with 169x increase in beta carotene, 6x vitamin C, and 2x folate
> 
> I don't see how anyone would argue that these are less nutritious.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are saying here that GM crops themselves aren't as healthy/have lowered fitness than non-GM crops. I would disagree with this as well. Take for example Monsanto's Bt corn. These corn plants are MUCH better suited to their environment than the non-GM corns. Since they're resistant to the pests that would attack it otherwise, GM corn can put all of it's energy into growth and seed production. Since they're not being attacked/eaten by all kinds of pests, they actually end up having a higher yield than the non-GM corn (although the intrinsic yield of both would probably be the same). And for general health I think it could be argued that the GM-corn is a much, MUCH hardier plant. And since these plants are generally hardier and higher yielding, this is this the reason why farmers end up switching to the Bt-corn. Also check out GM drought-tolerant corn
> .
> 
> The problem with your "natural" argument is that it's *not *the environment that's choosing the genes for our crop. In non-GM crops we're choosing the genes as well. But unlike the environment that selects for higher general fitness, humans tend to select for higher general palatability (tastiness). We select for plants that make better tasting/looking fruit, not for general hardiness. You probably wouldn't recognize wild corn from before it was domesticated. And since our crops originate from different parts of the world and transplanted to wherever humans take them, in most cases they are NOT well suited to local environments. Which results in most of our crops being plagued by bugs, disease, drought/heat wherever we take them. If NATURE had its way, most of our crops wouldn't exist in the first place, and those that currently exist would be wiped out by bugs/disease/local weather. The only thing keeping nature at bay is the hard work of farmers, and the innovations of agricultural technologies.


----------



## punctata

I am going to spew out about Population because obviously Genetically enhancing food and products are a result of population.

GMO's, genetically enhancing food ect... Is just us putting a band aide on our slit open artery while it bleeds out. If you want to feed everyone and you do, population will increase, then resources will become harder to come by due to population. When resources become limited, you may have Wars also for those resources. Pollution becomes greater and climates start to change. If you dive deeper into this and some of the issues and put emotions aside, feeding everyone even in poor countries and us (United States consuming too much), is hurting the world more than anything. Population is the biggest issue in the world with a huge trickle down effect. 

Why are we genetically enhancing foods, organisms, growing body parts off rats? Demand is greater than supply due to population so we have to find other means. What some say is good like the example of rice for the hungry may be looked at as bad when you look deeper. And when things like a birth limit may be looked at as bad, there may be some who find good in it. We as humans feel everything and everyone has a right to live, but nature does not agree. Every organism will eventually face extinction. That is part of life. Are we speeding our own and everything else with us? There is a tipping point and personally we are trying to pass it without consequence. But it will catch up. I love science ,but there is a darker side to it that many people want to pretend isn't there. I think population should be a bigger concern and made aware to everyone. Also you could include our life styles are factors also. Asking American to change life styles is like pulling teeth. If we said no more smart phones because they are killing the the Honey Bees, people would freak out and go crazy. 

Little off topic but I thought I would join the conversation. Good thread. Fun Read


----------



## hypostatic

As a scientist, it's not about believing one thing or the other. It's about having a healthy amount of skepticism and looking at the supporting evidence.

As I've stated, I'm not a big fan of the Bt-crops. I haven't done any searches on the subject, but I think there are some pests already showing signs or resistance to the Bt toxin. Whether this is true or not, just like most pesticides, it's just a matter of time before some bug develops a resistance.

I also share your concern with bees. Since we don't grow our food in a "natural" way, we don't have the natural local pollinators doing their job, so we have to rely on domesticated bees to pollinate our food. And I'm sure you've heard that our bees are dying at an alarming rate. With regards to Bt pollen, I think I've heard of studies both showing/refuting that it causes harm to bees. Clearly more independent research needs to be done on the issue, and I stand by my previous statement that the Bt crops are very poorly designed. They _could_ have been designed so that the Bt is only present in the stems/leaves, but it's everywhere, which I find concerning.



> If you choose local seeds that have been grown for generations in that climate w/ those predators the plants find ways to defend themselves. If you choose for local hardiness it leads to less problems.


If you have any knowledge/links to cases where this has actually happened I would love to read about!


----------



## Roadrunner

And being a philosopher it's about why we do it and not about doing it because we can.
As any good scientist knows, we can't account for all that is probable in nature during experiments in the lab. Everything has unintended consequences and there is no such thing as a free lunch. The supporting evidence is that we have always tried to stave off nature and we haven't really made things any better. For me it's a belief that we are generally heading in the wrong direction w/ the food industry(notice I called it an industry).

Here is a start on how plants adapt:

Plant Hardiness, What does it Mean?


----------



## Pubfiction

frogfarm said:


> Ok. some are more nutritious if modified that way but how do they perform in the field and what do they give up to produce the extra vits, etc.
> 
> And how are Bt toxins going to affect us in the long run. What about the bees that gather the Bt corn pollen? Your looking at certain traits taken from the whole and in general there are better and safer ways to achieve better and more plentiful food. And as has been stated, there isn't a food shortage so why do we need to increase our chemical use, GMO technology and lowering of the price and quality of food?
> 
> Right now plants are chosen for ease of harvest and nutritional profile is suffering because of it. If you choose local seeds that have been grown for generations in that climate w/ those predators the plants find ways to defend themselves. If you choose for local hardiness it leads to less problems.
> 
> Believe what you want though and I'll do things the way I think is best and we'll just hope I'm wrong.



There isn't a food shortage now but we may very well have one in the future, that's the whole point. Ultimately there are only 2 things that matter in the world, natural resources and efficiency. These 2 items define pretty much everything about the health, and life of any animal or humans. The second one efficiency IMO is the most important one for humans to focus on. Most of the time any one of us has very little control over natural resources, IE where we live dictates that and our class in society. But efficiency is the one thing we have a chance of changing it is what GMOs are all about and the last 10,000 years of human advancement are about. It allows us to better use the natural resources we have and trade for those we do not. Many people falsely call Americas wealth a product of innovation, its not innovation, its the efficiency we get out of certain innovations which allows us to have surpluses of natural resources which makes us rich. 

If we have a real food shortage then the result will be war and at the very least a lot of violence.

Any argument you can make for why we should use crop X over Y is great but GMOs can be based off crop X instead of Y if we desire so it becomes a mute point.




punctata said:


> I am going to spew out about Population because obviously Genetically enhancing food and products are a result of population.
> 
> GMO's, genetically enhancing food ect... Is just us putting a band aide on our slit open artery while it bleeds out. If you want to feed everyone and you do, population will increase, then resources will become harder to come by due to population. When resources become limited, you may have Wars also for those resources. Pollution becomes greater and climates start to change. If you dive deeper into this and some of the issues and put emotions aside, feeding everyone even in poor countries and us (United States consuming too much), is hurting the world more than anything. Population is the biggest issue in the world with a huge trickle down effect.
> 
> Why are we genetically enhancing foods, organisms, growing body parts off rats? Demand is greater than supply due to population so we have to find other means. What some say is good like the example of rice for the hungry may be looked at as bad when you look deeper. And when things like a birth limit may be looked at as bad, there may be some who find good in it. We as humans feel everything and everyone has a right to live, but nature does not agree. Every organism will eventually face extinction. That is part of life. Are we speeding our own and everything else with us? There is a tipping point and personally we are trying to pass it without consequence. But it will catch up. I love science ,but there is a darker side to it that many people want to pretend isn't there. I think population should be a bigger concern and made aware to everyone. Also you could include our life styles are factors also. Asking American to change life styles is like pulling teeth. If we said no more smart phones because they are killing the the Honey Bees, people would freak out and go crazy.
> 
> Little off topic but I thought I would join the conversation. Good thread. Fun Read


GMOs may be a result of population or they may not be, read above about efficiency. If you can produce crops in a more productive way then ultimately it does not matter how small or big your population is you desire that. It simply means less people and resources farming and more doing other things, IE raising poison dart frogs or creating new sources of efficiency and further increasing our quality of life. 

As for the rest about population, well that's a good argument from a intellectual standpoint but basing it in reality does not seem to work. We know from lots of data and studies that poorer people, less educated people, and people from many of the countries that actually have food shortages do almost nothing to limit their population growth. On the other hand the developed nations with surpluses in food and the desire to create these more efficient means of producing food are the ones that are actually self regulating population. Countries like Japan, Most of developed Europe, and the USA often need to allow immigration just to grow and sustain an economy. 





frogfarm said:


> And being a philosopher it's about why we do it and not about doing it because we can.
> As any good scientist knows, we can't account for all that is probable in nature during experiments in the lab. Everything has unintended consequences and there is no such thing as a free lunch. The supporting evidence is that we have always tried to stave off nature and we haven't really made things any better. For me it's a belief that we are generally heading in the wrong direction w/ the food industry(notice I called it an industry).
> 
> Here is a start on how plants adapt:
> 
> Plant Hardiness, What does it Mean?


I think most people are interested in the why, just because you can think of ways why something could go wrong does not mean we should halt progress, fact is if we thought that way we probably wouldn't be anywhere or have as free and safe of lives as we have now. Adaptation and development of resistance is a hurdle that will need to be overcome, and it will probably make some particular GMOs unsustainable, but that's a bridge we will cross when the time comes. 

I think another argument that I feel people are often mixing up is the argument for diversity. Currently in the USA and many developed countries we do have a problem with particular breeds or crops being way over used and we are setting ourselves up for a major catastrophe if a pathogen or something is able to wipe them out. Discussions of this almost always point back to the Irish potato famine where 1 particular very popular potato was so over used (note it wasn't a GMO) that when it was hit with a pathogen it resulted in mass starvation. But to me that's a completely separate argument which has been a problem for a very long time before and after the advent of GMOs. Unfortunately McDonalds wants all their French fries to have a very consistent taste from store to store so only one variety of potato will do. I just don't think its correct to use this argument against GMOs, its highly inaccurate. GMOs, themselves do not cause this phenomenon.


----------



## Roadrunner

Let's see, what's the unemployment rate? Those people couldn't weed fields? How many of these GMO's are created so they can withstand petrochemical pesticides and herbicides? How much of our food prices come from Monsantos agreements that you CAN NOT produce your own seed? How much gas does it cost to ship these seeds all over the country? How much yield is lost thru drought and other stressors these GMO plants can't deal well with? How many farmers have been put out of business of saving there own seeds because of CONTAMINATION from Monsantos pollen being blown all over? You really think GMO's are doing well for the country? GMO's are doing well for very few. All this efficiency has led to a lot of unemployment and farmers making very little of the cash. Our farms have turned into industrial/chemical systems. Farmers aren't farmers anymore. They are at the beck and call of the gov't and GMO companies. They have taken the sure thing. They follow the gov't planting schedules and the GMO seed contracts and chemical help.

Now sure, corn subsidies and farm policies(bills) have a bit to do with the downfall of our food but GMO's are the icing on the cake. Not 1 of those companies are doing it for any other reason than patenting and owning plants. So I don't trust them and think that when people actually wake up it'll be to late.

If we are going to have food shortages in the future it'll be population that's the problem. See when you produce more food people breed and then there are more people so they need more food. Do you think the population can just grow forever and GMO's will save us? If we sell our grain on a world market and China has a drought and they can pay for it, WE will end up having a shortage(I know not related to GMO's). It's our policies that will hurt us not our inability to produce food.

And I have total control over my natural resources. I have all the firewood I'll ever need, tons of wild edible plants, annual gardens and perennial gardens, fish, game, etc. We've become so efficient one of our biggest problems are obesity related. How about some of those that are overweight plowing some fields or picking weeds or harvesting veggies. To me all the extra energy going to waste on overfeeding people is an efficiency problem.

ANd tell that to the people who died because we didn't go as slow as we should've. You see it that all this efficiency has created time for other things and I see that it's made people lazy, unsatisfied and lacking tremendously in commen sense about weather, animals, insects and plants(the natural world).

Think of it how you will and I'll try and show people things they may have missed or ways they probably haven't looked at it. I could go on but I have to go work in the garden and cut wood. It keeps me active and healthy and gives me satisfaction to work on something to get a reward months later(without spraying or using seeds made in a lab).

And that's a moot point, not mute(sorry pet peeve) 





Pubfiction said:


> There isn't a food shortage now but we may very well have one in the future, that's the whole point. Ultimately there are only 2 things that matter in the world, natural resources and efficiency. These 2 items define pretty much everything about the health, and life of any animal or humans. The second one efficiency IMO is the most important one for humans to focus on. Most of the time any one of us has very little control over natural resources, IE where we live dictates that and our class in society. But efficiency is the one thing we have a chance of changing it is what GMOs are all about and the last 10,000 years of human advancement are about. It allows us to better use the natural resources we have and trade for those we do not. Many people falsely call Americas wealth a product of innovation, its not innovation, its the efficiency we get out of certain innovations which allows us to have surpluses of natural resources which makes us rich.
> 
> If we have a real food shortage then the result will be war and at the very least a lot of violence.
> 
> Any argument you can make for why we should use crop X over Y is great but GMOs can be based off crop X instead of Y if we desire so it becomes a mute point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GMOs may be a result of population or they may not be, read above about efficiency. If you can produce crops in a more productive way then ultimately it does not matter how small or big your population is you desire that. It simply means less people and resources farming and more doing other things, IE raising poison dart frogs or creating new sources of efficiency and further increasing our quality of life.
> 
> As for the rest about population, well that's a good argument from a intellectual standpoint but basing it in reality does not seem to work. We know from lots of data and studies that poorer people, less educated people, and people from many of the countries that actually have food shortages do almost nothing to limit their population growth. On the other hand the developed nations with surpluses in food and the desire to create these more efficient means of producing food are the ones that are actually self regulating population. Countries like Japan, Most of developed Europe, and the USA often need to allow immigration just to grow and sustain an economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people are interested in the why, just because you can think of ways why something could go wrong does not mean we should halt progress, fact is if we thought that way we probably wouldn't be anywhere or have as free and safe of lives as we have now. Adaptation and development of resistance is a hurdle that will need to be overcome, and it will probably make some particular GMOs unsustainable, but that's a bridge we will cross when the time comes.
> 
> I think another argument that I feel people are often mixing up is the argument for diversity. Currently in the USA and many developed countries we do have a problem with particular breeds or crops being way over used and we are setting ourselves up for a major catastrophe if a pathogen or something is able to wipe them out. Discussions of this almost always point back to the Irish potato famine where 1 particular very popular potato was so over used (note it wasn't a GMO) that when it was hit with a pathogen it resulted in mass starvation. But to me that's a completely separate argument which has been a problem for a very long time before and after the advent of GMOs. Unfortunately McDonalds wants all their French fries to have a very consistent taste from store to store so only one variety of potato will do. I just don't think its correct to use this argument against GMOs, its highly inaccurate. GMOs, themselves do not cause this phenomenon.


----------



## SDRiding

I just can't stay away... I like the idea of genetic modification being studied. However, I wish more focus would be on speeding up the natural process rather than forcing unnatural gene selection. Our current hybridized agriculture is quite possibly garbage to begin with, so comparing GMO to that is using a weak measuring stick. Our knowledge of human nutrition is really rather poor. We have much better results working with the natural system than against it. Check out Seattle's SEA streets project, awesome stuff (totally unrelated, and a bad comparison but I really like this project).

If the consumer is made aware of different options, the market will support non-GMO food and better agriculture techniques. Maybe some innovation will arise using natural systems to achieve healthier, natural crops. It won't happen if there is no choice.

Thanks for your insight by the way hypostatic, I hope it doesn't seem like you're being ganged up on. I'm all for scientific progress, but we far too often do things as soon as we know _how_ to do it.

The U.S.'s economic might is directly correlated to it's military might, check spanish-american war onward...


----------



## Pubfiction

frogfarm said:


> Let's see, what's the unemployment rate? Those people couldn't weed fields? How many of these GMO's are created so they can withstand petrochemical pesticides and herbicides? How much of our food prices come from Monsantos agreements that you CAN NOT produce your own seed? How much gas does it cost to ship these seeds all over the country? How much yield is lost thru drought and other stressors these GMO plants can't deal well with? How many farmers have been put out of business of saving there own seeds because of CONTAMINATION from Monsantos pollen being blown all over? You really think GMO's are doing well for the country? GMO's are doing well for very few. All this efficiency has led to a lot of unemployment and farmers making very little of the cash. Our farms have turned into industrial/chemical systems. Farmers aren't farmers anymore. They are at the beck and call of the gov't and GMO companies. They have taken the sure thing. They follow the gov't planting schedules and the GMO seed contracts and chemical help.
> 
> Now sure, corn subsidies and farm policies(bills) have a bit to do with the downfall of our food but GMO's are the icing on the cake. Not 1 of those companies are doing it for any other reason than patenting and owning plants. So I don't trust them and think that when people actually wake up it'll be to late.
> 
> If we are going to have food shortages in the future it'll be population that's the problem. See when you produce more food people breed and then there are more people so they need more food. Do you think the population can just grow forever and GMO's will save us? If we sell our grain on a world market and China has a drought and they can pay for it, WE will end up having a shortage(I know not related to GMO's). It's our policies that will hurt us not our inability to produce food.
> 
> And I have total control over my natural resources. I have all the firewood I'll ever need, tons of wild edible plants, annual gardens and perennial gardens, fish, game, etc. We've become so efficient one of our biggest problems are obesity related. How about some of those that are overweight plowing some fields or picking weeds or harvesting veggies. To me all the extra energy going to waste on overfeeding people is an efficiency problem.
> 
> ANd tell that to the people who died because we didn't go as slow as we should've. You see it that all this efficiency has created time for other things and I see that it's made people lazy, unsatisfied and lacking tremendously in commen sense about weather, animals, insects and plants(the natural world).
> 
> Think of it how you will and I'll try and show people things they may have missed or ways they probably haven't looked at it. I could go on but I have to go work in the garden and cut wood. It keeps me active and healthy and gives me satisfaction to work on something to get a reward months later(without spraying or using seeds made in a lab).
> 
> And that's a moot point, not mute(sorry pet peeve)


Well if you want people to weed fields GMOs are also not the problem, the problem is they are too expensive, so you need to get rid of social programs. Before GMOs people still used herbicides to weed, they just spot killed by running a rope drenched in round up slightly higher than the crop. 

I think I already addressed the population issue, I am sorry to say data does not support your hypothesis, if you want to fix the population the best thing to do is create a surplus of food so people in developing nations can get off the farm develop an alternative economy based on money and then ironically they start having less kids just like people in developed countries. 

Monsantos agreement raises the price of food 3-5% according to some people But at the end of the day it must be worth it to the farmers. So that particular statistic is probably flawed as it does not count reduced yield, or increases in labor. Its brutally hard surviving as a farmer they don't do things for very long if it isn't working better for them.


----------



## Roadrunner

I never heard of running a wick over a planted crop slightly higher than the crop. I've never heard of using roundup other than spraying or wicking it on a roundup ready crop, spot spraying or a strait out kill over the whole field. Roundup ready plants are made to be able to handle roundup so you can spray the whole field. Spot treatment is much more efficient and less toxic than spraying a whole field don't you think? Is it people are too expensive or is it a fundamental flaw in our economy?

So you think we have to solve the desert/food problem to be able to solve the population problem. you need to solve the water problem(which we've created here) to solve the food problem in the desert, it's not like the US. I think it'd take way too much work to do that and I think it'll go the other way in the meantime. So what data shows that our 2 societies would go the same way when given more food. I'd really have to see that study to see whether I'd think it's valid.

So your saying that farmers having to buy their seed and chemicals from Monsanto only raises the price of food 3-5%? The cost of buying seed over producing your own would jump the cost more than 3%. A lot of farmers do what is easiest and the gov't saubsidizes the rest. They could make more by growing good food but it would be more work. The gov't and monsanto make a system that would never survive in a real open market. We just couldn't use that much corn, it costs too much to make it into anything. And if more people were active in the farming of our food our unemployment wouldn't be so hi and people would be able to afford it and our healthcare would be less because of it. Ag is the one healthy job that connects people w/ the earth and has supported up to 90%? of the population. People may think that less people working in agriculture is better but I don't hold the same view. So until I see something other than Monsanto's cornfields and alfalfa and beets and whatever else they've modified strictly to be able to spray their chemicals (or manufacture bacterial pesticides) on maybe I'll have a different view.

And creating cassava w/ no cyanide and higher vitamins is great, unless it increases the pest population because of the better nutrition and no cyanide they get. Or if you have to spray more monsanto chemicals because you took out the cyanide which deterred pests. Besides the farmers prefer the bitter varieties because they deter pests. The more cyanide ridden variety is used in time of famine.



Pubfiction said:


> Well if you want people to weed fields GMOs are also not the problem, the problem is they are too expensive, so you need to get rid of social programs. Before GMOs people still used herbicides to weed, they just spot killed by running a rope drenched in round up slightly higher than the crop.
> 
> I think I already addressed the population issue, I am sorry to say data does not support your hypothesis, if you want to fix the population the best thing to do is create a surplus of food so people in developing nations can get off the farm develop an alternative economy based on money and then ironically they start having less kids just like people in developed countries.
> 
> Monsantos agreement raises the price of food 3-5% according to some people But at the end of the day it must be worth it to the farmers. So that particular statistic is probably flawed as it does not count reduced yield, or increases in labor. Its brutally hard surviving as a farmer they don't do things for very long if it isn't working better for them.


----------



## dwdragon

I've been reading the interesting but large can of worms opened with this debate. Against my better judgement I'm going to open another one.

IF it is ok to genetically modify plants. IF it is ok to genetically modify animals. IF it is ok to genetically modify LIFE. How would most of you feel about the government telling you that your children or grandchildren now must be genetically modified because they found it's the only way to be immune to things like HIV? With no real long term testing having been done.

This is an actual real question as they have found a few people who are genetically predisposed to be immune to HIV.

Probably the same way I feel about being forced to think of my children and grandchildren eating nothing but genetically modified food once the cross pollination has completely eradicated any non-genetically modified species. Cross pollination is not something we can control.

When you start playing with genetics it takes generation to see the full effect.


----------



## Dendro Dave

dwdragon said:


> I've been reading the interesting but large can of worms opened with this debate. Against my better judgement I'm going to open another one.
> 
> IF it is ok to genetically modify plants. IF it is ok to genetically modify animals. IF it is ok to genetically modify LIFE. How would most of you feel about the government telling you that your children or grandchildren now must be genetically modified because they found it's the only way to be immune to things like HIV? With no real long term testing having been done.
> 
> This is an actual real question as they have found a few people who are genetically predisposed to be immune to HIV.
> 
> Probably the same way I feel about being forced to think of my children and grandchildren eating nothing but genetically modified food once the cross pollination has completely eradicated any non-genetically modified species. Cross pollination is not something we can control.
> 
> When you start playing with genetics it takes generation to see the full effect.


I think when it comes to people you have to make that optional, unless things get so so bad we are basically a couple decades out from extinction (And we basically know it...not theory, like Omg the economy is going to collapse, and there is going to be a race war etc..etc.. claims some make that may or may not come true). 

We need to know we are screwed and have a relatively decent timeline on how soon that is going to happen (And have a good consensus on that from actual experts...not from Billy Bob militia guy in the trailor next door)...and then we can MAYBE talk about imposing some of these treatments....but hey they put Fluoride in the drinking water and you're forced to drink it unless you buy bottled and eat only things made with bottled or RO water...so I suppose there are precidents for it, and if it is relatively benign it may have its place...I just don't know...I'd have to take it on a case by case basis (Risk vs Reward).

My personal desire is if there was adequate testing/safety profile for those treatments that they would almost be mandatory...but while that is what I may want...It isn't something at this time I feel I have the the right to impose on someone else. (That is a can of worms that should rarely be opened for the sake of personal freedom/liberty)

I think another example of something like this, is a few years back they found 1 gene that seems to have a heavy correlation with depression and basically if you have one version of it you are highly resistent to depression compared to others with a different version....

Could you imagine how that might change the world, our every day lifes if we essentially erradicated most clinical depression? Some arts/creativity may suffer a bit...in some way but overall I think globally the effect of so many people being in a bit better mood might radically change the world...for the better (for the most part)... But I'm not prepared to force that on anyone...YET


----------



## Splash&Dash

Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted : The Salt : NPR


----------



## Ed

frogfarm said:


> And creating cassava w/ no cyanide and higher vitamins is great, unless it increases the pest population because of the better nutrition and no cyanide they get. Or if you have to spray more monsanto chemicals because you took out the cyanide which deterred pests. Besides the farmers prefer the bitter varieties because they deter pests. The more cyanide ridden variety is used in time of famine.


The value of higher cyanide cassava being better protected from pests is not as good as people often think... The reason is that there are a lot of pest species that coevolved with cassava and show no preference between high and low cyanide strains.. The only difference is from pests that are not coevolved with cassava (for which there are not as many and most are minor)... See for example the discussion http://ciat-library.ciat.cgiar.org/Articulos_Ciat/bellotti.pdf 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## hypostatic

frogfarm said:


> And creating cassava w/ no cyanide and higher vitamins is great, unless it increases the pest population because of the better nutrition and no cyanide they get. Or if you have to spray more monsanto chemicals because you took out the cyanide which deterred pests. Besides the farmers prefer the bitter varieties because they deter pests. The more cyanide ridden variety is used in time of famine.


From what I've read, the BioCassava Plus (BC+) program is not affiliated in any way to Monsanto. I don't know if farmers who plant BC+ use any Monsanto chemicals, but if they do, it's not because the crop necessitates it any any way inherently. 

Cassava is one of the most important food staple crops in the African continent due to its being very drought-tolerant and its ability to yield even when planted in poor soils. One of the major threats to cassavas worldwide is the cassava mosaic virus (CMV), which is able to kill the infected plants. The CMV is a major threat to food security in the continent, and it caused a major famine when it devastated the crop in the 1920s. While I think CMV is mostly contained to Africa and India, about 800 million people worldwide depend on cassava as a food source, and CMV would become a major threat to the food security of all those people should it spread around the world.

I don't think I mentioned it, but the primary focus of the BC+ program was to increase resistance to CMV through genetic modification. The program accomplished this by adding RNA interference genes (similar to the miRNA genes discussed earlier in the thread) that fight the virus selectively. The study I previously quoted stated that BC+ lines "remained susceptible to ACMV infection, but they had an enhanced recovery phenotype compared with wild-type plants". And this is done without the environmental consequences of using pesticides (the vector of the disease is a bug).


You can hate on Monsanto all you want (and I will agree with the vast majority of it), but when GMOs are designed intelligently and responsibly, they are extremely efficient and can have lots of health benefits for the people that use them


----------



## Roadrunner

Or there can be unintended consequences like a population explosion in the pest numbers because of better nutrition or human population increase in a place that can't produce enough food. What happens when cmv creates a new strain? We keep employing scientists to figure out in a lab how things will work in reality? What happens when big cities don't spring up because of better nutrition and more food?

I don't doubt some have good intentions in mind just that they can't predict what will happen.

And if these companies were in it for the good of humanity why are they patented and controlled? I'll agree Monsanto has given GMO's a bad rap.


----------



## hypostatic

frogfarm said:


> Or there can be unintended consequences like a population explosion in the pest numbers because of better nutrition or human population increase in a place that can't produce enough food. What happens when cmv creates a new strain? We keep employing scientists to figure out in a lab how things will work in reality? What happens when big cities don't spring up because of better nutrition and more food?
> 
> I don't doubt some have good intentions in mind just that they can't predict what will happen.


To me, this is tantamount to saying that we shouldn't vaccinate our children or try to find cure for human diseases because this will end up increasing the human population which will create more opportunities for different diseases to pop up. Similarly, I feel like that's saying that we shouldn't push a kid out of the way of a train because one day they might become a serial killer...

As scientists all we can hope to do is to improve the condition of people's lives. Would you argue that creating a smallpox vaccine is a bad thing? How about physical therapy techniques to help people walk again after they've been in a car accident? Or the development of neonatal care for premature births? Should we just shut down all the hospitals and subscribe to a "survival of the fittest" methodology, where those who can survive do, and those who can't perish? 

If anyone can say that the medical innovations that save and improve our lives is a good thing, I really don't see why creating a food in order to keep people from starving is a bad thing.



> And if these companies were in it for the good of humanity why are they patented and controlled? I'll agree Monsanto has given GMO's a bad rap.


This isn't true for GMOs across the board. The BC+ program was developed by a team of scientists from across the world, and they were funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, not some corporation. As far as I know, BC+ is not patented, and the plant's information is not "proprietary" like the roundup stuff -- in fact all the information is in the public domain if anyone wants to access it, which makes it pretty open source (unlike corporate stuff).
Info on the team that developed BC+
Link to BC+ Science Article


----------



## dwdragon

Medical advances have caused issues like super bacteria and virus. We need to be smart with our science. 

Creating immunizations that do not change our genetic makeup and do not force evolution are easily stopped if we find that they have crippling side effects 100 years from now.

Medical advances that do not alter our DNA and do not pass to our children can be stopped if we find that they have crippling side effects 100 years from now.

Self propagating living organisms that will lead (not maybe) to the extinction of current natural living organisms is not something that can be changed in 100 years. Genetic modification is forcing evolution the way we think it should go. Life on earth is a web. We should all know this by now. When you touch one part of the web the entire web shakes. If you push too hard on one part of the web the entire thing falls apart. 

Therefore honestly for the conservation of every living species on this planet, any self reproducing / propagating genetic project should be left alone. I would agree with isolation but we have a large amount of evidence that isolation rarely works if ever.


----------



## Roadrunner

Think what you will. It doesn't have to be all or none. 

And maybe I'll tell my friend who's child almost died from his latest vaccines to argue with you on that one. 

But when you try to equate my view to that of not saving a child from a moving train because he might become a serial killer, well that's enough for me. There is no definitive answer and you know my view and I know yours.




hypostatic said:


> To me, this is tantamount to saying that we shouldn't vaccinate our children or try to find cure for human diseases because this will end up increasing the human population which will create more opportunities for different diseases to pop up. Similarly, I feel like that's saying that we shouldn't push a kid out of the way of a train because one day they might become a serial killer...
> 
> As scientists all we can hope to do is to improve the condition of people's lives. Would you argue that creating a smallpox vaccine is a bad thing? How about physical therapy techniques to help people walk again after they've been in a car accident? Or the development of neonatal care for premature births? Should we just shut down all the hospitals and subscribe to a "survival of the fittest" methodology, where those who can survive do, and those who can't perish?
> 
> If anyone can say that the medical innovations that save and improve our lives is a good thing, I really don't see why creating a food in order to keep people from starving is a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't true for GMOs across the board. The BC+ program was developed by a team of scientists from across the world, and they were funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, not some corporation. As far as I know, BC+ is not patented, and the plant's information is not "proprietary" like the roundup stuff -- in fact all the information is in the public domain if anyone wants to access it, which makes it pretty open source (unlike corporate stuff).
> Info on the team that developed BC+
> Link to BC+ Science Article


----------



## Dendro Dave

dwdragon said:


> Medical advances have caused issues like super bacteria and virus. We need to be smart with our science.
> 
> Creating immunizations that do not change our genetic makeup and do not force evolution are easily stopped if we find that they have crippling side effects 100 years from now.
> 
> Medical advances that do not alter our DNA and do not pass to our children can be stopped if we find that they have crippling side effects 100 years from now.
> 
> Self propagating living organisms that will lead (not maybe) to the extinction of current natural living organisms is not something that can be changed in 100 years. Genetic modification is forcing evolution the way we think it should go. Life on earth is a web. We should all know this by now. When you touch one part of the web the entire web shakes. If you push too hard on one part of the web the entire thing falls apart.
> 
> Therefore honestly for the conservation of every living species on this planet, any self reproducing / propagating genetic project should be left alone. I would agree with isolation but we have a large amount of evidence that isolation rarely works if ever.


Again there are times when germ-line or self perpetuating genetic modifications are necessary to meet the goals of a project....goals that could be very beneficial to society or the individual. Are there risks? ...Yes, of course...but you have to weigh the risk vs reward...and if it tilts to more reward, then it just might be the way to go. 

Also with the staggering potential of these technologies we may find that ultimately they are our salvation...A desperate moment may come where some tech based on these sciences are the only shot we have to save someone, some people...or everyone...or animals/plants, entire ecosystems.... These technologies are basically in their infancy, there are going to be missteps, abuses...and mistakes but the ultimate pay off is staggering...if we proceed carefully. If we don't continue the research then that is one less tool we have at our disposal in desperate times. I can just see it...

"Ya if germ line genetic engineering had progressed about five more years I could totally save the human race...but no, a bunch of alarmists got their way and we were all a bit safer for awhile...but now thanks to them we're all about to be dead." 

Ya these technologies could cause such problems themselves...but there is inherit risk in most any useful/powerful technology... It's all how you go about the research and the application... I can kill you with a fork, or a I can use it to feed myself...that kinda thing. You can't just quit...First, it is unrealistic...2nd it is stupid. Can you slow down? ...Be more cautious?... Ya, and often that is a smart play. So call for that, demand that...don't ask them to just quit...it isn't going to happen. We just need to being doing these things in a sensible and responsible manner.


To quote Captain James T. Kirk - *"RISK IS OUR BUSINESS!"*


----------



## dwdragon

Dendro Dave said:


> Again there are times when germ-line or self perpetuating genetic modifications are necessary to meet the goals of a project....goals that could be very beneficial to society or the individual. Are there risks? ...Yes, of course...but you have to weigh the risk vs reward...and if it tilts to more reward, then it just might be the way to go.
> 
> Also with the staggering potential of these technologies we may find that ultimately they are our salvation...A desperate moment may come where some tech based on these sciences are the only shot we have to save someone, some people...or everyone...or animals/plants, entire ecosystems.... These technologies are basically in their infancy, there are going to be missteps, abuses...and mistakes but the ultimate pay off is staggering...if we proceed carefully. If we don't continue the research then that is one less tool we have at our disposal in desperate times. I can just see it...
> 
> "Ya if germ line genetic engineering had progressed about five more years I could totally save the human race...but no, a bunch of alarmists got their way and we were all a bit safer for awhile...but now thanks to them we're all about to be dead."
> 
> Ya these technologies could cause such problems themselves...but there is inherit risk in most any useful/powerful technology... It's all how you go about the research and the application... I can kill you with a fork, or a I can use it to feed myself...that kinda thing. You can't just quit...First, it is unrealistic...2nd it is stupid. Can you slow down? ...Be more cautious?... Ya, and often that is a smart play. So call for that, demand that...don't ask them to just quit...it isn't going to happen. We just need to being doing these things in a sensible and responsible manner.
> 
> 
> To quote Captain James T. Kirk - *"RISK IS OUR BUSINESS!"*


Research is all well and good but can you please tell me one thing that has been researched to a point of usefulness that has not been turned into a weapon or unleashed on the world before we fully understand the consequences?

If the discussion were purely allowing research, go for it! Research all you want make sure that it stays in the petri dish and test tube. But when the actions are to release something into nature that is effectively going to cause the extinction of 1 or more living organisms that is what I have an issue with.

Oddly I have no issues with research into cloning, genetic manipulation, gene therapy, and anything else anyone wants to do in a lab. I have an issue when they throw it out in the world without fully considering what is going to happen. The extinction of non-genetically manipulated food sources may not worry you or anyone else because well genetically modified is so much better. However, no one has taken into consideration that the genetic modification that are made could very well lead to dire ends and not show up for generations. 

It's cutting our own throat by playing Russian Roulette. I for one am not interested in gambling the survival of life on our planet. Saying that if we don't research this we won't know how to fix it in the future is an oxy moron. If we didn't create the problem in the first place we wouldn't have to hope that some genius in the future can fix it. I'm sure someone will come up with the "you're over reacting" but seriously there's a reason we deal with invasive species destroying smaller ecosystems and it's not because humans did every thing possible to keep them away.


----------



## Dendro Dave

dwdragon said:


> Research is all well and good but can you please tell me one thing that has been researched to a point of usefulness that has not been turned into a weapon or unleashed on the world before we fully understand the consequences?
> 
> If the discussion were purely allowing research, go for it! Research all you want make sure that it stays in the petri dish and test tube. But when the actions are to release something into nature that is effectively going to cause the extinction of 1 or more living organisms that is what I have an issue with.
> 
> Oddly I have no issues with research into cloning, genetic manipulation, gene therapy, and anything else anyone wants to do in a lab. I have an issue when they throw it out in the world without fully considering what is going to happen. The extinction of non-genetically manipulated food sources may not worry you or anyone else because well genetically modified is so much better. However, no one has taken into consideration that the genetic modification that are made could very well lead to dire ends and not show up for generations.
> 
> It's cutting our own throat by playing Russian Roulette. I for one am not interested in gambling the survival of life on our planet. Saying that if we don't research this we won't know how to fix it in the future is an oxy moron. If we didn't create the problem in the first place we wouldn't have to hope that some genius in the future can fix it. I'm sure someone will come up with the "you're over reacting" but seriously there's a reason we deal with invasive species destroying smaller ecosystems and it's not because humans did every thing possible to keep them away.


As I said there will always be misteps, abuse, mistakes etc..etc... that is part of the processs...

Sadly there are almost always some that will find away to do harm with a technology.... But there is no argument there short of just stopping science...but usually it is continued research that develops a counter to whatever someone else was abusing...and that cycle basically goes on perpetually just like in nature predator gets faster, prey gets smarter, predator gets smarter, prey gets faster, etc.etc..etc... 

Once the cycle starts there is rarely a way out...and we got on that ride way way way back. Now all you can do is fight fire with fire.... That means learning how fires get started, to start fires in novel ways, and the old ways of fighting fire...and developing new ways, finding way to defend against fire, finding ways to experiment/use fire safely etc..etc......until we wise up as a species and stop setting each other on fire, and are so good at what we do there are basically no more accidents. (That we can't handle at least)

As far as not fully considering the implications, your absolutely right....but in such things there are so many varibles it is rarely possible to consider them all, and sometimes a situation calls for a best guess and taking a risk.... When they do that in a foolish manner that is the peoples fault, not the sciences...but often things are learned and that mistake may lead to an advance....Unintended consequences are inherint in science...sometimes they screw you, sometimes they help you....but my point was that while it isn't always done well, we have to keep working on it while trying to get better at being responsible...because we may need this stuff to fix something that some other moron does with science  ...or save our selves from nature (like a virus). 

This whole cycle is basically just an extension of natural evolution...only we are getting into the drivers seat where we won't just be reacting to nature by building a machine, but we'll actually be able to alter ourselves or living creatures around us....very tricky, very risky but ultimately there have, or at least are going to be instances where it is absolutely necessary. It may be an act of god/nature, or it may be in response to something we did, or had a part in but short of stopping all science and going back to a hunter/gather/basic farming lifestyle we can't get off this ride now...all we can do is try to be smart and careful... 

That may mean being more judicious in how we use germline and similar tech...it may even mean not using them at all for awhile...I don't know, I doubt that will happen globally...and if it doesn't happen globally we put ourselves at a disadvantage by not also pursuing that tech...We may have to fix some mistake china made, or vise versa...we may have to defend ourselves against a weaponized version of some of this tech...but if we don't do the research or have the experience we are at a disadvantage. There is such a thing as going to fast maybe...but stopping just isn't an option now.

If you take a big risk like that it should be necessary...and there should probably be multiple fail safes and contingencies in place like ways to shutdown the genes at a later time, or make the animals sterile. I wholeheartedly agree that a lot times these actions are taken prematurely and not always responsibly...we have to try to prevent that but not by just stopping entirely. 

And sometimes the risks are minimal...like perhaps the glo-fish... Its unlikely those modifications are going to result in any catastrophe that wouldn't be caused by regular zebra fish....and now we have glowing pet fish. Is it worth it? That is a question each individual and societies as a whole have to answer...I think yes in some situations it is, in others no...*I'm for smart science and better lives.*...not stopping.

You said your not for gambling our survival...but if we stop and don't continue to pursue these technologies we're gambling our survival then too...just a different roll of the dice.

And as far as invasive species germ line tech or similar/related tech will probably be our best bet to reverse or salvage those situations until we get better at preventing them altogether (another job for science probably)...Yes there will be risks, but they may be worth taking...they may even be necessary


----------



## Woodsman

Marches against Monsanto are occuring around the world on Saturday, May 25Th. If you are near New York City, the march starts at Union Square at 1PM.

https://www.facebook.com/richard.ly...nts/379571882141135/?notif_t=plan_user_joined


----------



## thedude

SDRiding said:


> My problem with most GMO in general is that it's just not needed. It's a genetically modified version of corn that can withstand roundup. So you get a double dose of experimental science. Yippee.


Are you joking? There's almost 7 billion people on this planet with dwindling space and resources, GMO's are the way of the future, SO LONG AS ITS DONE RIGHT.

The legal problems are terrible, and it's just because of a greedy company. However, there isn't always health problems with this food. People need to stop having the mentality of "all or nothing."

I should also add, there are almost NO foods that you eat that are still completely natural. Humans have changed everything is some form or another, whether it's GMO's, hybrids, or domestication. 



dwdragon said:


> IF it is ok to genetically modify plants. IF it is ok to genetically modify animals. IF it is ok to genetically modify LIFE. How would most of you feel about the government telling you that your children or grandchildren now must be genetically modified because they found it's the only way to be immune to things like HIV? With no real long term testing having been done.


Without testing? Not a chance. However, having the choice to keep your child from getting HIV, polio, or any other detrimental disease? That would be incredible, and it is inevitable. However, I do believe it shouldn't be mandatory. Just because it's about people doesn't make it worse...Don't pretend like we are so much above other animals. 



dwdragon said:


> Medical advances have caused issues like super bacteria and virus. We need to be smart with our science.
> 
> Creating immunizations that do not change our genetic makeup and do not force evolution are easily stopped if we find that they have crippling side effects 100 years from now.


Forcing evolution is called domestication. It's the reason we have all the food we commonly grow now, as well as dogs and cats. Although, I'm not much of a fan of cats...


----------



## Dendro Dave

thedude said:


> Forcing evolution is called domestication. It's the reason we have all the food we commonly grow now, as well as dogs and cats. Although, I'm not much of a fan of cats...


Yes!!!...Down with cats!!!! 

Ferrets and Foxes are better!!!

Ferrets on steroids made to look like dogs are all the rage in S. America, and fairly cheap!!! A ferret for 150 is a little pricey...steroids are kinda expensive too usually...but a Ferret on steroids!....that is priceless!!!
*
Argentinian bazaar salesmen are passing off ferrets on steroids as toy poodles*
HuffPost Live





(Just kidding, that crap is totally unethical...and I don't hate cats quite as much as I made out)


----------



## hypostatic

thedude said:


> I should also add, there are almost NO foods that you eat that are still completely natural. Humans have changed everything is some form or another, whether it's GMO's, hybrids, or domestication.


You know, I HAVE heard of a fad diet where people go out and forage for nuts and berries or something lol. I swear its a real thing haha. I think I heard about it on NPR? They recommended you not forage in Central Park haha.


----------



## Dendro Dave

hypostatic said:


> You know, I HAVE heard of a fad diet where people go out and forage for nuts and berries or something lol. I swear its a real thing haha. I think I heard about it on NPR? They recommended you not forage in Central Park haha.


Don't eat the berries above the yellow snow...especially if they are dripping. Oh and don't eat the yellow snow!


----------



## SDRiding

thedude said:


> Are you joking? There's almost 7 billion people on this planet with dwindling space and resources, GMO's are the way of the future, SO LONG AS ITS DONE RIGHT.


Geez had to drag me back into this. 

It is funny the only time my points are discussed they are completely out of context. 

Like I said, give people the choice between GMO or not. We need less homogenization of our agriculture and more variety. 

Here is an easily digestible article on the subject:
Food of the Future to Be More Diverse?


----------



## Roadrunner

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/b...ineered-wheat-found-in-oregon-field.html?_r=0


----------



## kermit2692

Not even going to read all the replies..to the guy who is a biologist and says we are making gmos to produce more..ahhh haha ha..so not true, gmos truly exist for one reason profit..if their were truly a benefit farmers would want them, as it stands farmers in reality don't want them and can't get rid of them. Take the article about wheat in the news today, in 05 monsanto was to cease making gmo wheat, they are still finding it contaminating fields!..to anyone who says ohh its not really bad for you..get real! You eat a piece of microscopic rna and you can literally go sterile. So what if the rat study was flawed. controlled or not you can't argue with the outcome logically still being from the gmos. Anyone interested or without knowledge on the subject watch this 



 everyone should at least watch the first five mins anyway.

Funniest thing by far is Mr biologist genetically modifies organisms all the time yet he's probably highly against hybrids  kind of ironic to manipulate genetics in a lab and turn around and promote conservation! soon non gmo corn won't even stand a chance at life without human interference, it will all have become hybridized. At least with frogs in captivity or nature a hybrid can still be healthy. Just think if they were doing that to frogs by changing DNA in a lab, the frogs would have un known reactions because some parts of DNA will be inadvertently changed by the purposeful change. This is what they are doing to your food! Who knows what those inadvertent changes do to us!


----------



## hypostatic

kermit2692 said:


> so not true, gmos truly exist for one reason profit..


I'm sorry you feel that way, but that is truly not the case. While it seems to be the case for Monsanto's products, I believe Monsanto to be the exception to the rule, and not the lone standard. Here's a link to my previous post about BC+. I DEFY you to explain to me why the BC+ program exists for the sole reason of profit.
Again:
Info on the team that developed BC+
Link to BC+ Science Article

I'm not trying to change your beliefs about the subject. In cases like this, where people feel so strongly about a subject, it can be impossible to have them see it in any other light, so I won't try to do that.

But I *DO* implore you to learn some more about the science and biology behind the issue. I feel this is important for your own benefit because, currently, you are relying on the interpretation of others on the scientific matters surrounding the issue. As I and others have stated before on this thread, many of the "sources" that you've cited have been misinformed/incorrect about the science they were examining, and as a result they make false statements that are extremely biased.



> You eat a piece of microscopic rna and you can literally go sterile.


This is an example of misinformation. Can you provide a link to an actual study that claims this? I've discussed the issue of RNAs previously, but you are still afraid RNAs. Every time you eat a fruit, vegetable, or animal, you are also eating RNAs, whether they are GM or not. People have been eating RNAs for several thousand years without any ill effects. When you take a deep breath, in all likelihood you're breathing in some RNA. All of this without any ill effects. But, it should also be noted that certain RNAs can cause horrible things like AIDS or cervical cancers. Without knowing better about the subject of RNA, you can't really make heads or tails about the information I just gave you, or even decide if it's true or not.

Case in point, if you haven't read about it yet, you should really look into DHMO. DHMO is linked to several severe health conditions, and although I don't have any evidence to back it up, DHMO probably is contained in GMOs at high enough concentrations to be worrisome of.
Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide


----------



## carola1155

I honestly don't know enough about this to weigh in one way or another... but I liked your post simply for that Dihydrogen Monoxide link... haha


----------



## Dendro Dave

hypostatic said:


> Case in point, if you haven't read about it yet, you should really look into DHMO. DHMO is linked to several severe health conditions, and although I don't have any evidence to back it up, DHMO probably is contained in GMOs at high enough concentrations to be worrisome of.
> Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide


I can vouch for the dangers of DHMO, it has nearly killed me several times throughout my life.


----------



## NathanB

Dont forget the genital baldness
Monsanto Cucumbers Cause Genital Baldness -- Immediately Banned in Nova Scotia | The Lapine


----------



## Roadrunner

Anything to distract from the fact that it's out there and it's not easy to undo it. Pandora's box seems to be fitting.

Who was it that said that Monsanto said they wouldn't release it(rr wheat) here?


----------



## hypostatic

NathanB said:


> Dont forget the genital baldness
> Monsanto Cucumbers Cause Genital Baldness -- Immediately Banned in Nova Scotia | The Lapine


Sigh, just another blow to the Pthirus pubis worldwide population. Scientists are worried about the long-term survivability of this species.


----------



## FrogBoyMike

hypostatic said:


> The problem isn't GMOs. It's Monsanto and what it's doing. They lobby and manipulate the government into doing their bidding, and push poorly developed products into the market and bully farmers into buying them. And as previously stated, their poorly designed product can have actual environmental impacts.
> 
> And it really bugs me that Monsanto gives GMOs such a bad rap. They design a crop that doesn't just have a pesticide on the surface of the food you're eating, but _infused_ inside of every part of it. They do things half-a**ed, and it's just shameful.
> 
> I think like 90% of the food in the supermarket is GMO? The vast majority of these foods are just as healthy (if not more) than non-GMO foods.


DO you think that it's possible that Monsanto loves the fact that they get lumped in as "another GMO company" so that anyone that complains about GMO's in general sounds less creditable if most of them are truly harmless products other then that one group?

I hope you get what I'm trying to say here. It makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Companies like that always baffle me how they are able to get away with so much.


----------



## Noel Calvert

Blue_Pumilio said:


> Propaganda...
> 
> Have you read that rat study? It was horribly flawed does not even meet basic controls.


So look at the multitude of other evidence out there. Like the corn mentioned that has a pesticide engineered into it that causes organ failure. It was "intended" to cause insect organs to explode, but dissipate before human ingestion. 
The problem is this company sees us as resources for money, and does not care about our health. On the contrary, they are working with the powers that be "the rich behind the scenes" to begin aggressive population reduction and population control aka the sterile gerbils and rats after 3 generations.


----------



## hypostatic

FrogBoyMike said:


> DO you think that it's possible that Monsanto loves the fact that they get lumped in as "another GMO company" so that anyone that complains about GMO's in general sounds less creditable if most of them are truly harmless products other then that one group?
> 
> I hope you get what I'm trying to say here. It makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Companies like that always baffle me how they are able to get away with so much.


I don't think that Monsanto gets lumped ad just "another GMO company", the reason being the vast majority of GM crops come from Monsanto. In fact, I don't really know of any other for-profit companies that are engaged in mass marketing GMOs...

Monsanto can "get away with so much" because they're ludicrously profitable ($1.48 billion in the first quarter this year?). With all that money Monsanto is able to lobby (read:bribe) members of congress who write the legislation for our country to pass laws that are favorable to Monsanto. 

It's the golden rule -- whoever owns the gold, makes the rules.


----------



## hypostatic

carola1155 said:


> I honestly don't know enough about this to weigh in one way or another... but I liked your post simply for that Dihydrogen Monoxide link... haha


It's serious stuff man


----------



## hypostatic

Interesting graduate research project:


----------



## hypostatic

Like oranges? In case you haven't heard, oranges are in trouble, and genetic modification might be the only way to save it.

Read about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/a-race-to-save-the-orange-by-altering-its-dna.html

Listen about it here:
The Leonard Lopate Show: Saving Florida's Oranges - WNYC


----------

