Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
I told you Nitro in west Virginia. So much for links, the last one you posted was in Polish. Ha, ha.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Monsanto/GMO woo vs science
- Thread starter scaramanga
- Start date
I told you Nitro in west Virginia. So much for links, the last one you posted was in Polish. Ha, ha.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
False analogy. Monsanto do not secure their crap modified seed and once it infects natural seed that's it. They are removing people's freedom of choice, as you well know. These third form semantic debating club arguments just don't cut it in the face of cold logic. Scara... must do better! Seeya.
Those were words you posted, not a link or evidence.I told you Nitro in west Virginia. So much for links, the last one you posted was in Polish. Ha, ha.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/hyperlink
http://www.yourdictionary.com/evidence
If you change the .pl part of the link to .com then it's in English - I'm fairly sure the excerpt would have stayed in English anyway.
Nobody secures their seeds, everyone's seeds cross-pollinate, that's how pollination works.
Again, are the non-GMO farmers just as evil or can you provide a reason why GMOs are bad?
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
No, because the last time I looked, Mercedes were not reply involved in monopolization of their industry via fair and also nefarious means. Here's two links for you. There are many others.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...how-monsanto-controls-the-future-of-food.aspx
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Big agricultural practices have forever altered the landscape for non-GMO farmers. And everyone. As for your 'provide a reason why GMOs are bad', aside from the links above, when you start altering the composition of your food at it's source of growth/development, when you add artificial conditions or elements to whole foods, then you are playing with fire. Fruit and veg should not sit in bowls for two weeks looking fresh and wonderful. They should obviously be eaten within three days of being bought, but failing that, a week tops before they rot.
I'm gonna do you a big favour here and advise you never to listen to a single word said or written by Joseph Mercola. The man is the very definition of quack. Just google "mercola skeptic" and click on any of the thousands of links you see there.
Here's a good one:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/9-reasons-to-completely-ignore-joseph-mercola-and-natural-news/
The myth of Monsanto ruthlessly suing innocent farmers is just that. They are very assertive about their patent rights as well they should be, but do not go after those who haven't stolen from them.
Here was a case where some very well-funded anti-GMO types tried to prove that it happened and massively failed:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=156
Erm, you do realise that we've been genetically modifying food for the whole of the history of farming right?
We've been selecting, forcing, cross-breeding, etc. since mankind started purposefully growing food.
Pretty much every single food crop we grow is "not natural", it has been genetically altered for traits that we humans want to see in those crops.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Not to the extent of splicing a pig gene into a salmon we haven't.
Last edited:
So what are the dangers/risks/down sides to doing so?
Remember, we're after facts here not hysteria and hyperbole.
Also, probably just as important. Why do you think people are genetically modifying food?
Lost Mango
Allan Nielsen
True but not necessarily correct.
Selective breeding (as in in the last 10,000 years of agriculture) is phenotypically based (selecting on visible characteristics and hoping that they get passed on). The laws of natural selection (random assortment of chromosomes etc) and some of the pace of natural evolution are left in the process.
GMO is rushing the process - perhaps making it 'cleaner' in that it is specific genotypes being chosen rather than the vagaries and randomness of meiosis - but it reduces the chances of other species evolving with or coping with that change as it is so much quicker. This has been seen with escaped GMO salmon where the natural systems they escape into can't cope with the larger super-predator.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Well a Muslim wouldn't appreciate eating a salmon that contained elements from a pig for a start. Really opposition stems from this, that companies can dictate what we eat. Also, these companies have no bio security. For example salmon that have been genetically modified have escaped and pollute wild strains of fish. Why are companies genetically modifying food? well the answer is obvious-greed! Splicing a growth gene from a pig into salmon was all about boosting the growth rates of fish, so as to boost profit. Now that came as a surprise didn't it.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
This argument is one made up by self serving scientists who are desperate to find an argument. It simply does not hold water and acts as an excellent warning as to why these people need to be controlled. Selectively breeding an animal to boost certain characteristics has nothing to do with splicing genes from species to another. Mary Shelley was oh so right.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Boosting growth rates increases food production, making it more effective.
A more effective food production means releasing less CO2 into the atmosphere compared to less effective food production. It also makes it possible to feed more people. Unless we want millions and billions to starve more effective food production is simply a necessity. More effective food production also means using a smaller area for farming, a very intrusive industry.
Of course businesses are looking for profit. Just like in any sector... You're aware that we use capitalism as a motivational factor for development and scientific progress?
Of course there needs to be oversight and control, just like with all food production.
There are similarities between genetic splicing and more old fashioned breeding techniques and both end up influencing the genetic makeup of the organism.
Lost Mango
Allan Nielsen
That isn't true though.
The cost of growth is the same. We haven't worked out a way to make photosynthesis, respiration or assimilation any more efficient, we just have ways to make animals and plants do it quicker. It still needs the same amount of raw materials, just over a shorter time period.
From my knowledge, no GMO crops have shown sustained increased yield over more than 3 to 5 years except with increased additives such as fertilisers, as they drain the soil even quicker than 'normal' crops to fulfil their extra growth rate.
Until we invent Photosynthesis 2.1 then the actual cost remains the same.
What we can do is minimise loss to pests and competition (hence GMO crops use as much if not more pesticide than normal crops in some form or other) and then we have the environmental debacle/disgrace which is neonicotinoids which are decimating pollinator populations (and beyond) in a bioaccumulation system that makes DDT look like lemonade.
Kandi1977
Terry Dyson
fudging with nature never leads to anything bad, right? Your in deep water here my friend!
braineclipse
Willie Hall
If the GMO crops are not more effective what's the incentive to use them for farmers and other food manufacturers?
I don't quite understand what you're saying. You're saying they only increase yield if you add more fertiliser? How is that not improving the overall yield? Surely there are more costs to farming than fertlisers? You say you get the same yield over a shorter time period with the "same amount of raw materials". How does that not increase the amount of food you can produce in the same plot of land? (More effective).
fudging with nature is what we do. All the progress made by science and engineering is a matter of understanding and controlling nature.
A solid portion of the posters on here would be dead by now if not for medical science fudging with nature and immunizing against and treating our illnesses. We would not be able to communicate with each other across the globe. We would not be able to fly to and from Tottenham games. We would not be able to enjoy the games live on tv. If not for human beings "fudging with nature"... Go live with the Amish if you're against the progress of science and technology. Just don't start asking questions about the rather arbitrary decision to stop enjoying the fruits of progress at the specific time they chose to.
You're in very deep water if you want to stop scientific progress in the vital area of food production (or the part of it related to GMO). Less effective traditional food production will mean a lot more people starving to death. With the political and financial instability and war that almost inevitably brings with it. Deep waters in deed.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Last time I checked, smoked salmon wasn't on the menu of starving Ethiopians.
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Hmmmm, yes, I am aware that food cultivation modification has been taking place (in some form) pretty much since feudal times. I am further aware that thanks to the environmental damage done around the world, many crops need to be modified in some sense so as they can be grown. But what I do not, and will not, accept, is the accelerated modification companies such as Monsanto aggressively push not in the interests of anything other than profit. OR the fact that they can put whatever the fudge they want into these 'modifications' and most people have not on scooby dooby doo what the hell said-'ingredients' are.
We are all victims of it unless we live off the grid, but it is possible to make efforts to avoid having as little of that brick in your system as possible.
Errrrr, let me, ahhhh, put this, hmmmm, bluntly.
If you think fudging around with the world's food supplies simply to keep your investors happy and profit margins high, whatever the long-term effects might be to human beings OF that modification, then we have no further opinions to exchange. I will leave you with a phrase - you can these days get tits thanks to chickens. And I don't mean that macaron you might see stumbling out of KFC on the High Street at midnight.
Last edited:
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Knock yourself out with some reading, providing two sides of the coin (although one is distinctly thinner than the other)...it is the New York Times, so barring an outburst from you proclaiming them closet-lefties, we should be able to agree their research/sources are half-decent.
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2...isks-of-genetically-engineering-animals/?_r=0
One comment you made somewhere about 'pollination' led me to once again consider just how much the likes of Monsanto and big agriculture is fudging with the environment and causing the bee population to suffer big-time, which in turn affects natural pollination, which in turn makes big agricultural pollination necessary. Rather than wave your stick in the wind (!!!!!!!) asking for 'facts' and whatnot (as if they cannot be found with a few simple taps of a computer keyboard) go and read about the bee issues if you give a brick. And if you don't, trust me, it's a real issue.