# US Passes "Monsanto Protection Act"



## Moolaka (Mar 29, 2013)

Obama&#39;s Genetically Modified food bill is bad for America&#39;s health | Washington Times Communities

Seems our fearless leader is contradicting his campaign promises.

For those of you that know much about genes/expression/GMOs please speak up on this.


----------



## McKay (Mar 29, 2013)

What's so bad about genetically modified crops? Do people not get that they're already extensively genetically modified, just with a different method?


----------



## Watty (Mar 29, 2013)

Don't want to deal with this kind of stuff? Grow your own food.

I really don't get the big deal; the only thing that's going to change this sort of issue is population reduction, which isn't likely to happen anytime soon.


----------



## Sunyata (Mar 29, 2013)

It's all a secret plot to kill all white people. Everyone knows white people eat vegetables and shit. Then the jews will rule, and have obama as the sovietnazimarxistfascist king so that when Jesus comes back they will use their blackjew powers to repel him and keep the earth for themselves. Thus a new hell will be created. A hell with socialized healthcare and gays...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 29, 2013)

Everything is news these days...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 29, 2013)

Reuters - Konfyouzd thinks this story isn't news worthy. 3/29/13


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 29, 2013)




----------



## Moolaka (Mar 29, 2013)

It seems I've lost the crowd's interest, a crowd that obviously doesn't know anything about gene expression or the genetic mechanisms we're exploiting here.


----------



## Moolaka (Mar 29, 2013)

My uncle is a molecular biologist, that's the only reason I know this stuff.

Basically gene expression is what genes do to make organisms, it is strictly a blueprint, it does not and has never been easy to decipher. When we isolate a gene, say one that codes for a certain protein we want to exploit, all we know is what it is currently doing. We have no idea how that gene might react to certain forms of stimuli, what mutations it may perform and the effects of such expression.

So, let's say there's a engineered mutation in a potato (real example) that makes them more vigorous under normal to sub-nominal stimuli like water, nutrients, predators, temp, ect. Turns out that when nurtured in severe drought conditions this potato, which has an abundance of a certain toxin due to this engineered mutation that intrinsically makes it more vigorous, retains high levels of this toxin.

We have barely any idea what could trigger a mogul expression. Gene mutation happens naturally, it's a form of gene expression. These factors that we're largely in the dark about are called "epigenetic" factors.

Now, when you ingest these mutations they are not all broken down, some interact with certain forms of bacteria inside of your body and can mutate them in various unknown ways. 

So, to be clear, my president who promised better GMO legislation to expand our understanding of such unknowns during his campaign, has just given the most ruthless agricultural company in the world the ability to operate outside of any future GMO investigations. FDA testing is not mandatory, all GMO foods have been voluntarily evaluated. The danger is in the lack of and scope of testing, we have no idea what could happen down the road under different stimuli. The epigenetic factors are wildly unknown, at this point we know only what IS happening, not what could or will- and still all of this barely at all as it effects human biology. 

I'm sorry I don't have a link to an article about North Korea or aliens, but if you want to brush this off go for it, nobody made you read this. The simple fact is that if this GMO revolution goes south the economy and the population's very sustenance will be decimated (technically, 70% of crops and the Monsanto conglomerate). Due to the plethora of unknowns (yes, hundreds of studies is next to nothing when it comes to genetics, most are simply reaffirmation/disprove procedures) and the far reaching dangers inherent at this point- let alone back walking on campaign promises- the GMO debate should be thoroughly examined.

Any other molecular biologists wanna speak up go nuts, I have a very intelligent NIH physicist friend that I'm talking to that's given me more info I don't feel like typing as well.


----------



## haffner1 (Mar 29, 2013)

This is even worse news. Now we're totally screwed!

Scientists Isolate Gene Simmons | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## UnknownRex (Mar 29, 2013)

Sunyata said:


> It's all a secret plot to kill all white people. Everyone knows white people eat vegetables and shit. Then the jews will rule, and have obama as the sovietnazimarxistfascist king so that when Jesus comes back they will use their blackjew powers to repel him and keep the earth for themselves. Thus a new hell will be created. A hell with socialized healthcare and gays...



That made me lol so hard.


----------



## crg123 (Mar 29, 2013)

Sunyata said:


> It's all a secret plot to kill all white people. Everyone knows white people eat vegetables and shit. Then the jews will rule, and have obama as the sovietnazimarxistfascist king so that when Jesus comes back they will use their blackjew powers to repel him and keep the earth for themselves. Thus a new hell will be created. A hell with socialized healthcare and gays...




Interesting ideas, can we have a source? Is it Foxs News?? hahah


----------



## Sunyata (Mar 29, 2013)

crg123 said:


> Interesting ideas, can we have a source? Is it Foxs News?? hahah





Spoiler



Alex Jones



On topic though, OP is right in his disdain for this, and nicely articulated why. I just was spurred into being a foxtroll when I saw the words "our fearless leader" as it's always what those right-wing tards call him.


----------



## tm20 (Mar 29, 2013)

isn't GM food all genetically identical? so if there's no genetic variation and the environment changes, then you may have your entire harvest killed. it's always good to have genetic variation so atleast some can adapt to a changing environment and the species can live on. natural populations have this variation but as for genetically modified ones...i'm not too sure :S

* depends on if they sexually/asexually reproduce, anything with a flower sexually reproduces


----------



## axxessdenied (Mar 30, 2013)

Watty said:


> I really don't get the big deal; the only thing that's going to change this sort of issue is population reduction, which isn't likely to happen anytime soon.




Did you read the article at all?



> The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards, explains a letter to the House that has been signed by dozens of food businesses and retailers, as well as interest groups and agencies representing family farmers. Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.
> 
> *Why does Monsanto and other GMO companies need this protection? *


----------



## axxessdenied (Mar 30, 2013)

Moolaka said:


> My uncle is a molecular biologist, that's the only reason I know this stuff.
> 
> Basically gene expression is what genes do to make organisms, it is strictly a blueprint, it does not and has never been easy to decipher. When we isolate a gene, say one that codes for a certain protein we want to exploit, all we know is what it is currently doing. We have no idea how that gene might react to certain forms of stimuli, what mutations it may perform and the effects of such expression.
> 
> ...


The article actually brings up these points you talk about. It's pointless typing a wall of text when clearly most of the people that respond to this thread only read the subject of the article and not the actual content


----------



## Moolaka (Mar 30, 2013)

Monsanto even wrote the bill, they didn't just draft it. It's a complex problem now because clearly corporate influence is playing a big part in the legislation. 

I encourage you to look into the matter, it's not the validity of what we understand about GMO foods that is wrong, it's the massive amounts of unknowns that have yet to be addressed.

I typed out a wall of text because it's impossible to summarize, even still, but I do regard the SSO crowd as intelligent and anticipated a healthy discussion. It doesn't matter where you affiliate politically, which I don't, I think it's important to ask questions.


----------



## Moolaka (Mar 30, 2013)

tm20 said:


> isn't GM food all genetically identical? so if there's no genetic variation and the environment changes, then you may have your entire harvest killed. it's always good to have genetic variation so atleast some can adapt to a changing environment and the species can live on. natural populations have this variation but as for genetically modified ones...i'm not too sure :S
> 
> * depends on if they sexually/asexually reproduce, anything with a flower sexually reproduces



Variation, unless they can turn off this function in the organisms (unable), will always occur due to epigenetic influence from the environment.


----------



## Andromalia (Mar 30, 2013)

I have absolutely zero biology background except what I learned in class.

I have two problems with GMO _companies_. (note the focus)

-First, Monsanto has an awful record of selling barren crops to farmers, resulting on those becoming the slaves of the company, having to buy all their plants every year instead of being able to rely on saving a part of the seeds for the year after. One year, Monsanto raised its prices, making beggars of honest working people that gad been tricked into beliving in them.

-Second, if Monsanto & others argue and fight all the time so GMO aren't specified on the contents list of a product, I assume they want to hide it for a reason, which makes me extremely reluctant to use GMO-based food in turn.

Their products may be completely safe to eat, but as long as they try to hide them, I won't trust in companies out to make money over the suicides of farmers reduced to debt because of barren crops. Monsanto is a corporation out to make money, and out to do so in the food department. Given the methods they use, they need to be controlled ans can't be trusted. That is why given the choice, customers will often go for the non-GMO product.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 30, 2013)

A few points:

"Genetically modified" means that an alien gene (or genes) is inserted into a plant or animal, rather than a plant or animal group is bred to bring an already existing gene into more prominence. Inserting a human skin gene into a tomato for more insect resistance is one example, in that tomatoes don't already have such a gene. So no, humans don't genetically modify crops in this sense when they hybridize or grow traditional plants or strains. Arguing that transgenic creations are just like traditional methods is a talking point used by Monsanto and others, but is untrue. Don't repeat the lie.

GM crops have never had to pass rigorous safety testing in terms of human consumption. In the few cases where there was testing... the studies showed that the rats eating GM plants never made it to full term and giving birth, and died of severe cancers. Then Monsanto would pull the plug, and hide the results. That was a favorite tactic of the Tobacco Institute, and it's no surprise that Monsanto has also hired the same PR firms who used to work for Big Tobacco before Tobacco had to admit in court that they had been lying and manipulating the data. 

At this point, miraculous GM crops have only one advantage: resistance to pesticides. They can apply one spray of Roundup to the field, rather than using more judicious methods. Unfortunately, that inserted gene, like all plant genes, is promiscuous, in that it can (and does) leap into unrelated species, like the weeds around the fields. That's already happened, and now those weeds are also resistant to Roundup... so that herbicidal advantage is quickly disappearing.

It's also now becoming apparent that GM crops aren't as bountiful as even conventional crops... and that organic methods have even higher yields than either. That's a dirty little secret which Monsanto doesn't want known.


----------



## tm20 (Mar 31, 2013)

Moolaka said:


> Variation, unless they can turn off this function in the organisms (unable), will always occur due to epigenetic influence from the environment.



as well as horizontal gene transfer, but anyway, fuck monsanto


----------



## Semichastny (Mar 31, 2013)

Here is a repost from something i did a little while back:

on the Flavr Savr (the first gmo tomato):
"Unlike food additives, for which pre-market approval is required in the US, they argued that GM foods are the same or substantially equivalent to non-GM foods. *However, there was actually no scientific evidence that the tomatoes were safe for human consumption. In fact, the FDA had ignored many of its own scientists who were concerned that research had shown that GM tomatoes had a potential to cause stomach lesions.
*
Calgene had carried out three 28-day studies. Groups of rats were fed either a GM tomato, a non-GM tomato, or deionized water. Some of the studies revealed statistically significant differences between the effects of the GM and non-GM tomatoes. *While one study showed no problems, in the second gross lesions were observed in four out twenty female rats fed one of the two lines of transgenic tomato. In the third study gross and microscopic lesions were found in the rats. These findings, however, was played down and not publicly communicated by the FDA.*

While some scientists blamed the study methodology and argued against using animal feeding trials to assess GMOs, many FDA scientists questioned the safety of the tomatoes and the way the FDA management was handling the approval of GMOs. In a memo dated 16 June 1993 to Linda Kahl, Consumer Safety Officer at the FDA, Fred Hines, Staff Pathologist at the FDA wrote: *&#8220;There is considerable disparity in the reported findings of gastric erosions or necrosis lesions from the three studies provided by Calgene Inc. This disparity has not been adequately addressed or explained by the sponsor or the laboratory where the study was conducted &#8230; The criteria for qualifying a lesion as incidental were not provided in the Sponsor&#8217;s report.&#8221;*

Failure of the First GM foods

Animals Avoid GM Food, for Good Reasons Animals Avoid GM Food, for Good Reasons - Occupy Monsanto

"*In the first-ever long-term study, half the rats fed GMO corn died prematurely.* The normal life span of a rat is about 2 years. The previous tests on GM foods were 90 days. Long-term studies on GM crops have been discouraged or sabotaged by the industries behind GM foods who are also, in most cases, the manufacturers of herbicides and pesticides used on GM crops.
In the 2 year study, scientists at the University of Caen in France found genetically modified maize NK603 (GM corn) caused extreme tumor growth plus severe liver and kidney damage. The testing was held under high security to eliminate any possible corporate interference or sabotage."

Destructive effects of GMO foods - The Deming Headlight

*"The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be 
safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts*--all the while 
claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal 
reports and memoranda disclose: (1) *agency scientists repeatedly 
cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail *
different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and 
(2) that *this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who 
crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the 
same as natural ones. *


Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based, 
this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
*Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without 
testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by 
qualified experts."*
FDA Documents Show They Ignored GMO Safety Warnings From Their Own Scientists

Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world's most respected and well-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers from Scotland's prestigious Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novel GM potato with built-in Bt toxin. *Much to the surprise of many, the team discovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible for causing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed to the media out of concern for public health.*

But rather than be praised for their honest assessment into this genetically-tampered potato, Pusztai and his colleagues were chastised by industry-backed government authorities, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose office was discovered to have secretly contacted RRI just hours after Pusztai and his team announced the results of their study on television. *For speaking the truth, Pusztai was immediately fired from his position, and his team dismissed from their positions at the school.*

Scientist that discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired, team dismantled


"Transgenic cotton has been found growing in the wild in Mexico by researchers studying the gene flow of wild cotton populations, cites a new report published in the October edition of the journal Molecular Ecology.

The study, titled &#8220;Recent long-distance transgene flow into wild populations conforms to historical patterns of gene flow in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) at its centre of origin,&#8221; revealed that cotton, genetically modified to resist pesticides, insects and antibiotics, showed up in nearly 25 percent of the 270 wild cotton seeds acquired for the study, *with at least one of the collected seeds growing nearly 500 miles from the closest genetically modified cotton plantation.*

Ana Wegier, lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico&#8217;s Ecology Institute said, &#8220;It is urgent to stop the flow of genes between cultivated and wild plants.&#8221;* A major issue of concern for scientists and anti-GMO advocacy groups is that the now third finding of GM plant populations growing in the wild could lead to reduced diversity of wild plant species, which could be devastating for ecosystems, human health and food safety, as well as create legal tensions over crop drift and pollination by the patented seeds."*

http://www.organicauthority.com/blog...ild-in-mexico/

"Contrary to the promises made by the biotech industry,* the reality of the last 10 years shows that the safety of GM crops cannot be ensured and that these crops are neither cheaper nor better quality.* Biotech crops are not a solution to solve hunger in Africa or elsewhere," said in Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth Nigeria."

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/200...839136449.html

"*U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of &#8220;superweeds&#8221; and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.*"

Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study - Occupy Monsanto

Institute for Responsible Technology - 65 Health Risks of GM Foods


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 1, 2013)

There's also the fact that Monsanto is actually suing farmers who 

-replant seeds from their original recolt. Monsanto thinks they should pay again, because they own the patent for the plant as a whole.
-Have had their fields contaminated by the neighbour's, and therefore have Monsanto crops in their recolts, totally unwillingly.

That "Monsanto pretection act" is really the fact that if you get cancer because of Monsanto...you can't even do anything about it.
It seems like they are the Philip Morris of the food industry, except everybody knows cigarettes are bad.
Capitalism at its finest...


----------



## ElRay (Apr 1, 2013)

Andromalia said:


> There's also the fact that Monsanto is actually suing farmers who
> 
> -replant seeds from their original recolt. Monsanto thinks they should pay again, because they own the patent for the plant as a whole.
> -Have had their fields contaminated by the neighbour's, and therefore have Monsanto crops in their recolts, totally unwillingly.



And to add to that:
Sue farmers that buy their seed grain from storage silos that bought corn, soybeans, etc. from farmers that used Monsanto seeds.​Basically terminating the legal concept of "first sale" and forcing their licensing on the grain storage facilities and the new buyers w/o their consent.

Ray


----------



## wlfers (Apr 1, 2013)

This thread has inspired me to do a little but of e-reading on the matter. Generally there's two sides to any story, except this one. It seems a clear cut case of ultimate assholery vs everyone else. Am I missing something?


----------



## Moolaka (Apr 2, 2013)

Yea, what we know indicates that the things we don't know are harrowing. It's obvious the GMO agenda is pushing legislation in the US to make it harder to bring those responsible forward for questioning.

In other related news, Haiti burns 460 tons of Monsanto seed the company donated. This article is old, but they have officially burned it all.

Beverly Bell: Haitian Farmers Commit to Burning Monsanto Hybrid Seeds


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't know a lot about this subject, but I have a question of sorts... With the rapid growth of the human population on this planet, I assume that we don't (or at least won't) have enough resources to feed everyone. Won't these genetically modified strains at least help ease this problem? What alternatives are available to help in the long run?


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 2, 2013)

ArtDecade said:


> I don't know a lot about this subject, but I have a question of sorts... With the rapid growth of the human population on this planet, I assume that we don't (or at least won't) have enough resources to feed everyone. Won't these genetically modified strains at least help ease this problem? What alternatives are available to help in the long run?



I am not aware of any credible proof that GMOs ease that problem. The reality of weeds and insects adapting to round-up ready plants dampen such prospects. It takes about 1,000 tons of water to get 1 ton of wheat, the functioning of our agricultural system is tied to oil. I doubt shooting microscopic pellets with arctic trout DNA into a strawberry to create a fruit that secretes it's own anti-freeze is going to be a big help. 

EDIT: Remember now only about 10% of land is suitable for farming, 40% can be used for animals.

"Food production must double by 2050 to meet the demand of the world&#8217;s growing population and innovative strategies are needed to help combat hunger, which already affects more than 1 billion people in the world, several experts today told the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) during a panel discussion on &#8220;New cooperation for global food security&#8221;."

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gaef3242.doc.htm


----------



## Moolaka (Apr 2, 2013)

We can feed everyone, we can give everyone a house, clean water, free energy, and education. We've known this since before WW2. The reason we don't is because then nobody will make any money at the top.


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 2, 2013)

Moolaka said:


> The reason we don't is because then nobody will make any money at the top.



Correction: those at the top make money by actually hindering technological progress.

As said above, GMOs could be an answer to a few problems. But definitely not when the mods are sterile crops or crops designed so they contaminate fileds to enable Monsanto to make money by suing. What they want is establish a monopoly by force, removing the competition via legal means with the help of their friends in Congress.
Most likely, the representatives responsible for this have been paid, old school.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 2, 2013)

McKay said:


> What's so bad about genetically modified crops? Do people not get that they're already extensively genetically modified, just with a different method?


Do people not get the difference between the methods?


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 2, 2013)

I am a molecular biologist and worked in a lab studying plant genetics for 4 years while I was in school. I do not however have a PhD and am not an expert. That being said...

People who freak out about genetically modified food typically don't understand anything about genetics.

Did you know that people "genetically modified" their crops (and pets... but that's off topic) through selective breeding for thousands of years? Corn (Maize) was derived from wild grasses. Broccoli and Cauliflower are the same species. There are more examples.

Now, people who don't understand science freak out when you insert genes into different organisms. However, that gene doesn't do anything other than what it did in the original organism. If it didn't code for something dangerous in the original organism it won't in the new one. Genes code for proteins (well, not always... but that's all that's relevant to this discussion) and that's it! It's beautiful in its simplicity at times.

GM-crops are probably going to save a large number of people form starving to death one day due to overpopulation. So, they are here to stay. Whether people like it or not. I have no issue with eating them.


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 2, 2013)

As to the comments about the crops being sterile. The reasoning behind that actually has scientific merit.

If the modified organism is hardier it could potentially out compete the unmodified organisms in nature. Therefore, making it unable to reproduce is actually a safeguard against the potential extinction of the wild-type.

Now, I'm not saying that companies aren't going to take advantage of that to further their business model. However, don't think that scientists are a bunch of evil men who sit around and think up ways to fuck up the world. I'm just trying to bring forth some facts.


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 2, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> I am a molecular biologist and worked in a lab studying plant genetics for 4 years while I was in school. I do not however have a PhD and am not an expert. That being said...
> 
> People who freak out about genetically modified food typically don't understand anything about genetics.
> 
> ...



So your saying that creating a pea plant that is tall and has many peas in it's pod by selectively breeding tall and bountiful pea plants is the same as shooting microscopic pellets of human DNA into corn to create spermacide?

EDIT: Imagine if we change your subject to people...



groverj3 said:


> Did you know that people "genetically modified" their children (and pets... but that's off topic) through selective breeding for thousands of years? Latinos were derived from the spanish raping native americans. Africans and Causacians are the same species. There are more examples. So why are people freaking out about us inserting cheetah DNA into an embryo?


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 2, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> So your saying that creating a pea plant that is tall and has many peas in it's pod by selectively breeding tall and bountiful pea plants is the same as shooting microscopic pellets of human DNA into corn to create spermacide?



No, I'm saying that selectively breeding tall and bountiful pea plants is the same as inserting genes into pea plants that result in tall and bountiful pea plants. That's the point I'm trying to get across.

Also, there is nothing "unsafe" from the health standpoint of a consumer about inserting genes from one organism into another. For example, inserting a gene into corn that codes for a protein which is harmless to humans but attaches to the surface receptor proteins of a plant virus, blocking entrance to the cell and preventing infection of crops by said virus. That protein that was harmless to humans in its original organism is still harmless when made by another organism.

Another example. Someone finds a gene that when mutated a specific way increases the production of a chemical found in a plant which is beneficial and nutritious. Inserting that mutated gene into other plants only results in the plants picking up that mutation. It doesn't magically make the plant cause cancer. That's just silly.

That is the point I am making.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 2, 2013)

Somehow I don't think any moral implications of genetically modifying humans would make the line for getting cheetah genes injected into your unborn child so he'll be born with superhuman speed any shorter .


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 2, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> EDIT: Imagine if we change your subject to people...



You're confusing something which you find offensive with something that is actually dangerous.

I'm not saying we should make people glow in the dark with jellyfish genes.

Edit: That would make going to a movie theater fucking terrible


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 2, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> No, I'm saying that selectively breeding tall and bountiful pea plants is the same as inserting genes into pea plants that result in tall and bountiful pea plants. That's the point I'm trying to get across.



Yes but that is not the totality of "genetic modification", the problem many individuals have with comes when people are inserting alien genes through unnatural methods into an organism to create strange mutations. The anti-freeze strawberry and human/corn spermicide are examples of this. Now just because I said unnatural doesn't mean I am falling for the naturalistic fallacy, I am not trying to say because it's unnatural it's therefore bad. It's simply to contrast how radically different selectively bred traits can be compared to genetically engineered ones, and that the processes aren't similar enough to make that sweeping generalization. 



groverj3 said:


> Also, there is nothing "unsafe" from the health standpoint of a consumer about inserting genes from one organism into another. For example, inserting a gene into corn that codes for a protein which is harmless to humans but attaches to the surface receptor proteins of a plant virus, blocking entrance to the cell and preventing infection of crops by said virus. That protein that was harmless to humans in its original organism is still harmless when made by another organism.
> 
> 
> Another example. Someone finds a gene that when mutated a specific way increases the production of a chemical found in a plant which is beneficial and nutritious. Inserting that mutated gene into other plants only results in the plants picking up that mutation. It doesn't magically make the plant cause cancer. That's just silly.



I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree. The issues that arise are from the natural process of adaption. "Super" Weeds resistant to glyphosate have quintupled from the end of 2007 to the beginning of 2011 (2.4 to 12.6 million acres). Monsanto admitted bollworm has developed resistance to it's Bt Cotton in India. Cross-Contamination of crops holds significant biological and legal consequences.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332813553729250.html



groverj3 said:


> You're confusing something which you find offensive with something that is actually dangerous.



No I am saying if the exact same thing was happening to a human I doubt people would bring up the whole "selective breeding is Genetic modification" argument to counter it.

EDIT: To clarify further: 

A pea plant is naturally bred with another pea plant to get a trait.
A strawberry is shot with microscopic gold pellets containing DNA from an unrelated species.

Side by side these things are not similar enough to warrant the "selective breeding is Genetic modification" argument.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 2, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> GM-crops are probably going to save a large number of people form starving to death one day due to overpopulation. So, they are here to stay. Whether people like it or not. I have no issue with eating them.


Like me, you're a little late to the conversation. That point is pretty dead in the water. We make enough food now, people are starving as a result of political bullshit.


----------



## Mexi (Apr 2, 2013)

For those of you that are unfamiliar with agribusiness and the dangerous implications of their practices, check out the book "the world according to monsanto" and the documentary "food inc" for some basic info on the subject.

Leave the effects of GMOs on human beings aside, GMO crops are notorious for contaminating regional strains of crops and companies like Monsanto have no problem suing small farmers into oblivion because of it. Their promises of "higher yields, higher incomes" have devastated local economies in rural India that have seen their Roundup-Ready GMO cottom produce a fraction of the promised results. In fact, the Indian government banned BT cotton because of the waves of suicides by farmers that lost everything by buying into Monsanto's promises

For a company that poisoned thousands of Vietnamese civilians with Agent Orange in the 60s, resulting in generations of birth defects, miscarriages etc., I'm amazed *anyone* can sympathize with them, especially with all the information that is out there. This company is probably the closest thing to "evil" in my book, from poisoning the entire town of Anniston, Alabama, to their shameful suppression of research and revolving-door relationship with the FDA and everything in between, they are the worst of the bunch.

oh yeah and they hold a virtual monopoly over the intellectual property of the world's most commonly used seeds too.

(don't bother asking for sources, educate yourselves people, it's all out there)


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 2, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> Yes but that is not the totality of "genetic modification", the problem many individuals have with comes when people are inserting alien genes through unnatural methods into an organism to create strange mutations. The anti-freeze strawberry and human/corn spermicide are examples of this. Now just because I said unnatural doesn't mean I am falling for the naturalistic fallacy, I am not trying to say because it's unnatural it's therefore bad. It's simply to contrast how radically different selectively bred traits can be compared to genetically engineered ones, and that the processes aren't similar enough to make that sweeping generalization.



My point was not to say that the processes are the same. Only that on a very basic level they can accomplish the same thing. Induction of new traits. One method just allows for a greater variety of traits to be changed. In the end a gene is a gene and how it gets transferred is irrelevant to the argument about whether it is dangerous.



Semichastny said:


> I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree. The issues that arise are from the natural process of adaption. "Super" Weeds resistant to glyphosate have quintupled from the end of 2007 to the beginning of 2011 (2.4 to 12.6 million acres). Monsanto admitted bollworm has developed resistance to it's Bt Cotton in India. Cross-Contamination of crops holds significant biological and legal consequences.



Resistance is a problem, true. That's not a reason to stop the research. It's a reason to keep doing it IMHO. It's like hitting a moving target. Sort of like antibiotics. Research into those slowed and when the bacteria caught up with the drugs we have, in some cases there isn't anything we can do.



Semichastny said:


> No I am saying if the exact same thing was happening to a human I doubt people would bring up the whole "selective breeding is Genetic modification" argument to counter it.



People might not bring it up due to it not being very PC, but it would still be true 



Semichastny said:


> EDIT: To clarify further:
> 
> A pea plant is naturally bred with another pea plant to get a trait.
> A strawberry is shot with microscopic gold pellets containing DNA from an unrelated species.
> ...



That would all depend on who you ask. To some people the process is less important than the end result. That's where we don't agree.


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 2, 2013)

Mexi said:


> For those of you that are unfamiliar with agribusiness and the dangerous implications of their practices, check out the book "the world according to monsanto" and the documentary "food inc" for some basic info on the subject.
> 
> Leave the effects of GMOs on human beings aside, GMO crops are notorious for contaminating regional strains of crops and companies like Monsanto have no problem suing small farmers into oblivion because of it. Their promises of "higher yields, higher incomes" have devastated local economies in rural India that have seen their Roundup-Ready GMO cottom produce a fraction of the promised results. In fact, the Indian government banned BT cotton because of the waves of suicides by farmers that lost everything by buying into Monsanto's promises
> 
> ...



Not trying to defend a corporation here. Just the science.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 3, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> No, I'm saying that selectively breeding tall and bountiful pea plants is the same as inserting genes into pea plants that result in tall and bountiful pea plants. That's the point I'm trying to get across.



Sorry, but you're wrong, and you also seem to not understand the evolutionary process.

Evolution works via changes/mutations, and by selection, whether natural or by human -guided husbandry. Everything builds on what came before, with incremental changes. 

That's why you can't breed a creature which looks like a mythological griffin, because there are no normal lions with six limbs to sacrifice a pair in order to make some wings. Similarly, you can't breed a rabbit to glow in the dark, as the gene doesn't already exist in rabbits to begin with. 

Genetic modification, when discussing GM plants and animals, refers to transgenic modification. Genes are taken from one species and inserted into an unrelated species. 

You're just repeating the Monsanto talking points.

The best illustration of how wrong you are is... if they were really the same, why didn't they just breed plants and animals to instantly get the result they wanted? They couldn't, in the same way you can't instantly breed two rabbits or monkeys and get a fluorescent offspring. 

Transgenic is not the same as husbandry. Simple and straightforward, and (assuming the subject came up) I'm surprised your classes never covered the distinction.


----------



## Cancer (Apr 3, 2013)

ArtDecade said:


> I don't know a lot about this subject, but I have a question of sorts... With the rapid growth of the human population on this planet, I assume that we don't (or at least won't) have enough resources to feed everyone. Won't these genetically modified strains at least help ease this problem? _What alternatives are available to help in the long run_?



Just my .02$ (and not to derail), but the best alternative is vertical farming. Vertical farming increases the surface area we have to farm on, allows for natural farmland to repair itself (from non-use), and because it's enclosed, doesn't need to same amount of pesticide we currently use (if at all).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 3, 2013)

Cancer said:


> Just my .02$ (and not to derail), but the best alternative is vertical farming. Vertical farming increases the surface area we have to farm on, allows for natural farmland to repair itself (from non-use), and because it's enclosed, doesn't need to same amount of pesticide we currently use (if at all).
> 
> Vertical farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


(My comment is meant to agree, not ridicule)

Time for the return of the victory garden. Even city dwellers can join in.


----------



## tm20 (Apr 3, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> don't think that scientists are a bunch of evil men who sit around and think up ways to fuck up the world



scientists don't fuck up the world, greedy business men do


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 3, 2013)

Explorer said:


> Sorry, but you're wrong, and you also seem to not understand the evolutionary process.
> 
> Evolution works via changes/mutations, and by selection, whether natural or by human -guided husbandry. Everything builds on what came before, with incremental changes.
> 
> ...



As I said in my previous posts, obviously the process of making a transgenic organism is different. That's irrelevant as to answering the question of whether such an organism is dangerous. The resulting organism shouldn't be feared because it was created by scientists. That's the point I was trying to get across.

I'm not just regurgitating information I heard in a lecture while in school. I worked with transgenic Arabidopsis (model organism used in plant research) for quite a while.

I'm just trying to present this information is a logical manner without sounding too disrespectful. However, I feel like I'm going to be re-wording and posting the same information over and over again if I keep coming back to this thread.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 3, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> *As I said in my previous posts, obviously the process of making a transgenic organism is different.*



Actually, you didn't. 



groverj3 said:


> No, *I'm saying that selectively breeding* tall and bountiful pea plants *is the same as inserting genes* into pea plants that result in tall and bountiful pea plants. *That's the point I'm trying to get across.*



And that's why I decided to clarify, because I was surprised that you made that second statement. 

Going further, you decided to choose a fairly innocuous example in defense of the idea that we know all the implications of any given transgenic modification. 

Here's a question for you: How do you prove the safety of a plant which creates its own pesticides, given how promiscuous plant genes are?

You know that the genes can jump.

You know they can jump into other plants which are used as food sources.

It's a fairly straightforward example of a large risk. I'd be interested in hearing how there isn't anything to worry about with such genes being released into human food crops, not just a weak assurance about how we just *shouldn't* worry, or stating that the average person is just overreacting to what is an obvious and easy-to-understand danger. 

And, as you've done work in the hard sciences, you can appreciate how little work has actually been allowed by Monsanto in testing the safety of these product... and hopefully also realize the implications on Monsanto burying as much of it as possible. As a scientist, I'm sure you'd be in favor of actual testing and studies of the various dangers to be sure that they are as minor as you are saying, right?

----

For those interested, I'll again observe that *organic crop yields > conventional crop yields > GM crop yields, undermining another of the Monsanto talking points. *


----------



## Moolaka (Apr 3, 2013)

What is going on, and has been going on since the American Revolutionary War, is an American conglomerate trying to alienate the population from their needs for profit. There is plenty of food for everyone (it grows on trees, literally), what there is not is short term profit margin for equal rights to that food.

If you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins he explains what he did as a former economic jackal, what the rest of the world has known about American economic conquest since the 70's. The GMO movement is political, it is being pushed on the third world in the interest of profits, NOT in the interests of human necessities.

Semi-related, read Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. They explain more of the surrounding politics of the point I just brought up.


----------



## Overtone (Apr 3, 2013)

Even if you don't see an issue with transgenic GM in food crops wouldn't you still have a problem with the OP topic... that the bill being passed basically favors the producers over the population and environment in a case where the regulatory agencies DO determine that there is a problem? If there is no issue, it'll never come up... so why do they need that protection?


----------



## axxessdenied (Apr 4, 2013)

Overtone said:


> Even if you don't see an issue with transgenic GM in food crops wouldn't you still have a problem with the OP topic... that the bill being passed basically favors the producers over the population and environment in a case where the regulatory agencies DO determine that there is a problem? If there is no issue, it'll never come up... so why do they need that protection?



People don't consider their long term health. I for one do not want to be one of those people suffering from cancer in my final years because I was too lazy to stay healthy and not eat poisoned food.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 4, 2013)

Explorer said:


> For those interested, I'll again observe that *organic crop yields > conventional crop yields > GM crop yields *


 
Can you provide some sources for that?

I mean that in an "it'd be interesting to read about" sort of way, not an "I think you're full of shit, so prove it" sort of way, just to clarify.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 4, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Can you provide some sources for that?
> 
> I mean that in an "it'd be interesting to read about" sort of way, not an "I think you're full of shit, so prove it" sort of way, just to clarify.


Even though I already believe it, I'll +1, because one can never have too many sources.


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 4, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> Not trying to defend a corporation here. Just the science.


The science actually isn't the problem here.  Corporate behaviour is.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 4, 2013)

Overtone said:


> Even if you don't see an issue with transgenic GM in food crops wouldn't you still have a problem with the OP topic... that the bill being passed basically favors the producers over the population and environment in a case where the regulatory agencies DO determine that there is a problem? If there is no issue, it'll never come up... so why do they need that protection?




As a person whom has no issues with the concept of GM food, this. This exactly. This bill is bullshit. Monsanto is Bullshit. I am really upset by this bullshit.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Apr 4, 2013)

Ah, food politics and the monopolization of the seed and agriculture industry. Anyone who still questions what's wrong with this simply isn't aware that the science is the least of the problems. The sociological impact is massive, and you only need to look as far as the fact that suicide is the leading cause of death among farmers world-wide to understand why this is a problem. It just isn't right that in order to pay a corporation that sued you for not using their seeds on _your_ farm, the only pay-out high enough is your life insurance policy.

The Farm Crisis | International Society for Ecology and Culture

And for the complacent bunch who say if you don't like it, then grow your own food, there's a lot going on globally in subsistence and urban agriculture. Read up on the Detroit agricultural movement which was a response to economic, social and racial issues, look at what's happening in Cuba agriculturally and what's going on in the global south. There's a lot of things moving in a positive direction and a lot of people doing great things for their communities and the world as far as food production goes.

I firmly believe that the world would be a far batter place if every would get off their lazy asses and either a) put some research into the food and consumption choices they make or b) learn to provide for yourself. Grow your own food, and hunt your own meat. Either one would be a much healthier and more ethical option than whatever you can get from your supermarket, not to mention how much further it'd take your dollar value. Plus as far as I'm concerned, anyone who can manage to survive and feed themselves with just a few tools, some determination and a strong skill set is as badass as a person can get.

It may seem daunting at first, but I'm wrapping up the construction of a self-sustaining year-round hydroponic window farm in the greenhouse at my University. Soon enough, I'll be able to feed myself with vegetable and herbs grown in wine bottles hanging from a window just a few kilometers from my apartment. The whole process is a lot easier than you'd think, and it's even more rewarding than it is simple, so don't be afraid to get your hands dirty and take back control of what's in your food and where it comes from!


----------



## narad (Apr 4, 2013)

There is so much misinformation in this thread, I'm almost astounded. Too much to clarify.

Randomly I want to point out that the roundup resistant crops are not a result of gene-jumping, this is simply the evolutionary process functioning in an environment with a new artificial constraint. Weeds aren't going for a roll in the roundup-resistant hay and breeding a new plant. The behavior is exactly what we observe in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and why using antibiotics on populations of annoying bacteria without obliterating them can cause a lot of problems downstream. This is because you're artificially selecting all surviving members of the population, the ones with the most resistance - even if they would eventually die off, and breeding within that top population. This greatly increases the chances of introducing increasingly more resistant populations, until at some point your antibiotic or your pesticide is no longer useful.

But yea, don't take that as being pro-Monsanto. I almost feel bad about writing a pro-GM paper almost 15 years ago for an econ class. What Monsanto is doing to the small farm through litigation, and to genetic variation in crops, is unbelievably reckless. We're having centuries of hand-selected crops wiped out through cross-contamination with GM-fields. It's not very easy to undo.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 6, 2013)

Sorry, I might have been conflating a few things from work, where we're currently studying organic standards, GMOs, and conventional farming, as well as food safety. I've been reading a lot on studies in progress (although Monsanto doesn't want such studies done), white papers, and other materials.

And part of that reading has been on getting most yield out of terrain, including how to increase production on working farms. Previously farms had integrated livestock and crops, until that system was neatly divided into many problems (fertilizing without animals, eliminating animal waste, and so on). That was what I was conflating with organics, as a lot of organic farmers are looking at such integrated solutions.

I'm not even sure if I can find many published studies on conventional versus GM crops, as Monsanto often pulls the plug and sues if their technology is used in ways counter to the signed agreement, including most uses outside of just growing crops. 

I'll withdraw my previous assertion until/unless I can find something in the metric ton of paper on my work desk, but I can probably find something on the conventional>GM angle more easily...


----------



## Overtone (Apr 6, 2013)

JeffFromMtl said:


> Ah, food politics and the monopolization of the seed and agriculture industry. Anyone who still questions what's wrong with this simply isn't aware that the science is the least of the problems. The sociological impact is massive, and you only need to look as far as the fact that suicide is the leading cause of death among farmers world-wide to understand why this is a problem. It just isn't right that in order to pay a corporation that sued you for not using their seeds on _your_ farm, the only pay-out high enough is your life insurance policy.
> 
> The Farm Crisis | International Society for Ecology and Culture
> 
> ...



When peak oil comes back to the forefront people will have a lot more incentive to do this kind of thing unless they are wealthy enough to double/triple their food costs as a % of income. It is great to have the opportunity to prepare in ways like home gardening and also changing diet. I've been cooking more vegetarian food the last few years and it cut my budget pretty much in half! This year I finally get to start a balcony garden... very excited about that! All in all it is costing me about $50 in materials and whatever water I'll need (will try to make a rainwater collection device from free parts some day) for a whole bunch of plants!


----------



## flint757 (Apr 6, 2013)

Yeah, business practices aside, the fact that they own something like ~95% of the seed market is just plain scary even if everything was on the up and up. They literally control what grows and they are an unethical company to boot. Now they can just do whatever they want without any consequences thanks to the bill which just adds to how bad the situation is and that is excluding the GMO aspect all together.


----------



## engage757 (Apr 6, 2013)

FDA Finally Admits Chicken Meat Contains Cancer-Causing Arsenic | Alternative


----------



## engage757 (Apr 6, 2013)

Overtone said:


> When peak oil comes back to the forefront people will have a lot more incentive to do this kind of thing unless they are wealthy enough to double/triple their food costs as a % of income. It is great to have the opportunity to prepare in ways like home gardening and also changing diet. I've been cooking more vegetarian food the last few years and it cut my budget pretty much in half! This year I finally get to start a balcony garden... very excited about that! All in all it is costing me about $50 in materials and whatever water I'll need (will try to make a rainwater collection device from free parts some day) for a whole bunch of plants!



Have you seen Aquaponics growing mediums that allows you to raise fish? You should look into that. A friend of mine owns a Tilapia farm, and they push all the fish excrement through to fertilize their organic veggies!


----------



## flint757 (Apr 6, 2013)

engage757 said:


> FDA Finally Admits Chicken Meat Contains Cancer-Causing Arsenic | Alternative



Which just begs the question even more so, why did Monsanto need so much protection when the FDA is unethical to begin with and apparently can be bought (or is willing to bury the mistakes they have made too)?


----------



## Overtone (Apr 6, 2013)

One thing at a time habibi, let's see if these tomatoes and cucumbers do ok first! 

As for the FDA I decided years ago that they are an agency there to protect large scale food producers and drug manufacturers, not consumers.


----------



## Watty (Apr 6, 2013)

JeffFromMtl said:


> I firmly believe that the world would be a far batter place if every would get off their lazy asses and either a) put some research into the food and consumption choices they make or b) learn to provide for yourself. Grow your own food, and hunt your own meat. Either one would be a much healthier and more ethical option than whatever you can get from your supermarket, not to mention how much further it'd take your dollar value. Plus as far as I'm concerned, anyone who can manage to survive and feed themselves with just a few tools, some determination and a strong skill set is as badass as a person can get.



While I agree with what you've said, I think there are two more key items missing:

1) Overpopulation is the root problem. Get rid of this and we'd have a much easier time providing healthy, local food. We spoke at length in one of my PHIL courses as to how we fucked ourselves when we industrialized agriculture.

2) The people who realize that mass produced food is "bad" are still enabling. I've got a buddy who won't eat 95% of what's on a menu for the reasons mentioned here and more, but he's still willing to give his business to these places. i.e. Boycotting 99% of the menu items at McDonald's isn't doing shit if you're still buying stuff from them.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Apr 7, 2013)

engage757 said:


> Have you seen Aquaponics growing mediums that allows you to raise fish? You should look into that. A friend of mine owns a Tilapia farm, and they push all the fish excrement through to fertilize their organic veggies!



We've got two aquaponic set-ups at the greenhouse I've got my window farm in, it's pretty damn impressive. It's like it's its own little ecosystem.



Watty said:


> While I agree with what you've said, I think there are two more key items missing:
> 
> 1) Overpopulation is the root problem. Get rid of this and we'd have a much easier time providing healthy, local food. We spoke at length in one of my PHIL courses as to how we fucked ourselves when we industrialized agriculture.
> 
> 2) The people who realize that mass produced food is "bad" are still enabling. I've got a buddy who won't eat 95% of what's on a menu for the reasons mentioned here and more, but he's still willing to give his business to these places. i.e. Boycotting 99% of the menu items at McDonald's isn't doing shit if you're still buying stuff from them.



As for overpopulation, I think that if we can rethink the way we see cities and agriculture, that would be part of the solution. I forget the exact numbers, but industrial food production costs about 13 calories in order to produce just 1 calorie of food, which seems pretty fucking ass-backwards to me, while tradition gardening methods give us much closer to a 1:1, or even positive ratio. I do understand that at some point, the population will reach that magic number (some predict as soon as 2050) of around 12-13 billion that would overburden the planet, but while we figure out how to get Indians and sub-saharan Africans to use contraceptives (which was going pretty well with American-led family planning programs and promotion of female literacy in those areas until the government pulled the carpet out from under that one in deciding that their time and money would be better-spent fighting for oil), we can figure out how to change our mindsets about the expected and accepted methods of food production.

And just because your dumb friend is a hypocrite, doesn't mean that everyone who claims to care about these things is. Some of us actually do care, and our actions speak for that


----------



## axxessdenied (May 13, 2013)

Supreme Court Backs Patents on 'Self-Replicating' Technology | Threat Level | Wired.com

Not a good sign.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 13, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> People might not bring it up due to it not being very PC, but it would still be true



Slavery--that little subject no one likes to touch--seemed like unplanned selective breeding... The ones that lived and kept working had kids that grew up to do the same and the ones that died... Well...

And you wonder why those silly negros are so good at sports...


----------



## hairychris (May 14, 2013)

axxessdenied said:


> Supreme Court Backs Patents on 'Self-Replicating' Technology | Threat Level | Wired.com
> 
> Not a good sign.



Precisely.

GM, if properly tested and used, can really be good. Go science.

Monsanto/etc = Cunts who, if this pans out, could reduce farmers to a form of serfdom.


----------



## shaun (May 14, 2013)

hairychris said:


> Precisely.
> 
> GM, if properly tested and used, can really be good. Go science.
> 
> Monsanto/etc = Cunts who, if this pans out, could reduce farmers to a form of serfdom.




Yeah I was watching a documentary or something about these Monsanto dudes, that a few years ago they only had about 2% of the seed industry,now they virtually own the whole industry. I think there was this farmer who practised seed saving or something and got sued for it.

Brutal.


----------



## Rock4ever (May 14, 2013)

Aside from the uncertain risks of fucking with nature, the biggest risk I see with these GMOs is the seeds(and presumably the resulting plants) are still subject to intellectual property laws even after they have transferred from producer to the farmer. 

It gives the seed producer far too much control. The whole thing of shareholder value is king even in the face of the good of the citizenry is an unmitigated crock of shit.


----------



## vilk (May 15, 2013)

When things like this pass into law, it makes me feel like the government isn't even trying to lie about their intentions anymore. Someone used to have to talk crafty, make people believe them with some sort of lie (marijuana is dangerous! Iraq has nukes!), but this is so overt, it's like making a national address: "Citizens of the United States, we just want to confirm that yes, we will _always_ help some huge questionable business avoid responsibility, and no, we couldn't care less how it affects you."


----------



## axxessdenied (May 15, 2013)

baron samedi said:


> When things like this pass into law, it makes me feel like the government isn't even trying to lie about their intentions anymore. Someone used to have to talk crafty, make people believe them with some sort of lie (marijuana is dangerous! Iraq has nukes!), but this is so overt, it's like making a national address: "Citizens of the United States, we just want to confirm that yes, we will _always_ help some huge questionable business avoid responsibility, and no, we couldn't care less how it affects you."



Too many people care more about frivolous news instead of news that actually affects their lives.


----------



## habicore_5150 (Jun 2, 2013)

Not sure if this is bump worthy, but talking about this whole Monsanto BS: Anonymous disables Monsanto


----------



## vansinn (Jun 3, 2013)

Monsanto, and other GMO corps, are all about control (which of course leads to money).

I've been following the resent cases of i.e. the US farmer who bought seeds from the elevator that weren't labeled as containing a small percentage of Monsanto patented stuff, and yet lost his case against them, which was about how they waned to prevent him from re-seeding.

And right now, there's this case about a non-approved varity from their experimental program, that was found in Oregon, which is even scarier than potentially tested stuff.

last year, I read about whether or not their products are save, where a high-ranking Monsanto representative said that it's not their job to test and verify if it safe - that's a job for the authorities!
WFT? so, producers doesn't need to take responsibility for their products!


On a perhaps not really related sideline, the upcoming free trade arrangement attempt (yet again) between US and EU will require EU, which have fairly strict rules on foods and production, to downgrade many of those. It's called harmonization..
I really feel with you Americans, having to suffer the effects of the corrupt "well-regulated" industrial legislation.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 3, 2013)

Yeah, big business rarely loses their court cases it seems here in the US.


----------



## hairychris (Jun 3, 2013)




----------



## tedtan (Jun 3, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Yeah, big business rarely loses their court cases it seems here in the US.


 
Unfortunately, this is true. He who has the most money to blow on the case typically wins, whether they're in the right or not.


----------



## Mexi (Jul 2, 2013)

saw this a while back and wasn't sure if it was posted

Monsanto turns to Blackwater for increased security, intelligence and infiltrate activist groups - The Global Dispatch

not surprising that Monsanto would turn to an organization that is also rife with human rights abuse allegations. While it's a far cry from outright owning a private army, Monsanto's reliance on Blackwater (now Academi) resources to infiltrate activist groups is regrettable, to say the least.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 4, 2013)

In spite of it pledging to allow use of its GM crops to study animal health and safety, Monsanto has done its best to keep results private, or prevent such studies altogether.

However, a recent well-designed study came out recently:

A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet

The researchers found few statistically significant differences between the two groups after comparing them based on nearly 20 different parameters, including weight gain, stomach ulcers and kidney abnormalities. The GM-fed pigs did, however, show significantly higher rates of &#8220;severe&#8221; stomach inflammation, as well as an average of 25 percent heavier uteri in relation to body weight. The researchers feel that this is a good starting point for further studies, as the uterine weight gain mirrors that in a rat study (with the rats also suffering pregnancy/stillbirth problems as well while on GMO-grain diets compared to non-GMO controls). 

If you have a strong stomach, be sure to read about the stomach irritation, and look at the pictures on page 8 of the .pdf (page 45 as numbered on the bottom). 

----

Regarding organic > conventional > GMO yields, I have to track down the study itself, but conversation with a coworker reminded me of a 2008 Iowa State University long-term study showing organic practices outpacing chemically based farming in yield, profitability and improved soil quality. The quality of the two types of field was the same up until three years after a conversion to organic farming... and then the fourth year, the organic corn fields started to outpace the conventional. Soybeans remained the same. However... the organic fields showed less run-off, better soil quality, and less contaminants. 

----

Also, a great study was done by a student showing that organic foods were better for fruit flies than conventional.

Is Organic Better? Ask a Fruit Fly - NYTimes.com

Just a few things to digest (pun intended!)...​


----------



## NovaReaper (Aug 18, 2013)

Sunyata said:


> It's all a secret plot to kill all white people. Everyone knows white people eat vegetables and shit. Then the jews will rule, and have obama as the sovietnazimarxistfascist king so that when Jesus comes back they will use their blackjew powers to repel him and keep the earth for themselves. Thus a new hell will be created. A hell with socialized healthcare and gays...



this is actually true though.

BAN ME


----------



## The Reverend (Aug 20, 2013)

Explorer, you said earlier in the thread that genes were 'jumping' from GM corn to weeds? If genes can jump, than there's a good possibility that we've been eating GM foods this whole time? 

Monsanto's business model is corrupt, and it's a shame that the government was obviously paid off. You don't even need a tin foil hat to see that a bill specifically allowing a company to do whatever the f--k it wants was not created out of concern for the average citizen's benefit. 

Having said that, I personally am not able to see a compelling cause against eating GMOs. I see a lot of things on Facebook saying that these things are causing cancer and killing rats and basically just acting like straight assholes to the biology of any living thing they're forced on, but I'm missing the part where waves of American infants die or suffer stomach deformities from baby food that uses GM crops. I'm missing the science that says I can eat a salmon that makes its own antifreeze, but when those genes are put in corn, something "unknown" but probably "bad" will happen to me. Genes are just blueprints; I'd be truly worried if I bit into an apple and found that it had the necessary cellular and organ structures to grow teeth and bite me. I honestly think that misunderstanding of science is what's driving the mainstream to disapprove.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Aug 20, 2013)

Haven't we been (on a much smaller scale) performing genetic engineering on plants (and feed/domestic animals) for thousands of years now? Dogs, horses, cattle, crops, chickens, etc. You don't think the optimal traits for their specific purposes were selected (by accident or on purpose) over time to get what we have now (or before GMO's)?



The Reverend said:


> *I honestly think that misunderstanding of science is what's driving the mainstream to disapprove*


----------



## groverj3 (Aug 26, 2013)

wannabguitarist said:


> Haven't we been (on a much smaller scale) performing genetic engineering on plants (and feed/domestic animals) for thousands of years now? Dogs, horses, cattle, crops, chickens, etc. You don't think the optimal traits for their specific purposes were selected (by accident or on purpose) over time to get what we have now (or before GMO's)?



Yes. You are correct, sir. People who don't understand science are what drives the fear of GMOs. Just like morons who think you shouldn't vaccinate kids. It's the same sort of thing.

Monsanto isn't exactly an angel as far as their business practices, but the science is sound.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Aug 26, 2013)

wannabguitarist said:


> Haven't we been (on a much smaller scale) performing genetic engineering on plants (and feed/domestic animals) for thousands of years now? Dogs, horses, cattle, crops, chickens, etc. You don't think the optimal traits for their specific purposes were selected (by accident or on purpose) over time to get what we have now (or before GMO's)?





But the issue isn't cross breeding, which is in essence accelerated evolution and as you say, has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. The issue is GMO's are indeed cross bred with other strains of other plants, some completely unrelated, but gene splicing with synthetic pesticides and fungicides is THE issue and cause for concern.


----------



## The Reverend (Aug 26, 2013)

Dave_Magos said:


> But the issue isn't cross breeding, which is in essence accelerated evolution and as you say, has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. The issue is GMO's are indeed cross bred with other strains of other plants, some completely unrelated, but gene splicing with synthetic pesticides and fungicides is THE issue and cause for concern.



Why aren't you concerned about the viruses and bacteria inserting themselves into your genetic code _as we speak_. You're being ....ed up genetically by organisms with an agenda, and yet you're worried that corn with extra proteins that create a thicker husk to fight insects will hurt you. 

I've made up my mind. I'm firmly pro-GMO, anti-Monsanto.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Aug 26, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> Monsanto isn't exactly an angel as far as their business practices, but the science is sound.




That's quite an understatement. Monsanto has stolen more Land from South Americans and Africans then the Romans. They have literally taken away Farms that have been in Families for Hundreds of years, ruining families and leaving many destitute. 

All this because these native people refused to plant BT Cotton, Corn or Soybeans. Monsanto is being sued by Brazil, India and a Host of other Nations because of their Predatory Patent Policies and theft of Native Seeds. They are a despicable Company and a constant source of humiliation and shame for the United States.

As for the Science, in the year 1995, many would have agreed with you. But now? Farmers are spending as much money now, and in some cases more on Spraying for Insects and Weeds as they did before the inception of GMO Round Up Ready and Pest resistant crops. Bugs and weeds are evolving resistance to the GMO crops, causing Farmers to spend even more money spraying Poisons to try and Counteract the new Super Weeds/Bugs that are appearing and spreading all over the South and Mid-west. The Science of GMO's is collapsing.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Aug 26, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> Why aren't you concerned about the viruses and bacteria inserting themselves into your genetic code _as we speak_. You're being ....ed up genetically by organisms with an agenda, and yet you're worried that corn with extra proteins that create a thicker husk to fight insects will hurt you.
> 
> I've made up my mind. I'm firmly pro-GMO, anti-Monsanto.




This isn't about "Husks", this about Pesticides and weed killer that is being woven into the genetic code of our staple crops and labeled "safe", without the long term studies supporting the claim. That was made clear in my post that you quoted.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 27, 2013)

Dave_Magos said:


> That's quite an understatement. Monsanto has stolen more Land from South Americans and Africans then the Romans. They have literally taken away Farms that have been in Families for Hundreds of years, ruining families and leaving many destitute.
> 
> All this because these native people refused to plant BT Cotton, Corn or Soybeans. Monsanto is being sued by Brazil, India and a Host of other Nations because of their Predatory Patent Policies and theft of Native Seeds. They are a despicable Company and a constant source of humiliation and shame for the United States.
> 
> As for the Science, in the year 1995, many would have agreed with you. But now? Farmers are spending as much money now, and in some cases more on Spraying for Insects and Weeds as they did before the inception of GMO Round Up Ready and Pest resistant crops. Bugs and weeds are evolving resistance to the GMO crops, causing Farmers to spend even more money spraying Poisons to try and Counteract the new Super Weeds/Bugs that are appearing and spreading all over the South and Mid-west. The Science of GMO's is collapsing.



GMO's are not just food related.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Sep 7, 2013)

flint757 said:


> GMO's are not just food related.




Ok? I'm aware of that but what's your point?


----------



## flint757 (Sep 7, 2013)

Dave_Magos said:


> Ok? I'm aware of that but what's your point?



Because all of your complaints for GMO's in general seem to be food/Monsanto related. That isn't grounds for saying GMO's across the board are a bad thing nor GMO's not made by Monsanto.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Sep 8, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Because all of your complaints for GMO's in general seem to be food/Monsanto related. That isn't grounds for saying GMO's across the board are a bad thing nor GMO's not made by Monsanto.




The question you should ask yourself is are you ok with the Natural order of Organics being replaced with those of GMO Origin? 

I ask because GMOs are designed for one thing and one thing only, to win. 

Whether Food crops or GMO Pine Tree's, these plants pollinate and when doing so spread their genetic code everywhere. Organic Crops lose their USDA Seal, and as in the thousands of cases in South America and Africa, Farmers are left vulnerable to Patent Lawyers from a VARIETY of GMO producers.

My distaste for Monsanto is only because they have been hyper aggressive in land acquisitions but that practice has been used by ALL GMO Producers, not just Monsanto.


----------



## rectifryer (Sep 8, 2013)

The issue here isn't whether or not GMO is harmful; that is a red herring to the EXTREMELY corrupt practice of legalism here. Mansanto is trying to cultivate a monopoly. They have cornered the marked using laws surrounding patents to force competition out. The easiest way to do that is to pretend your seed is proprietary and treat it like intellectual property. Now the courts are treating crops like software.

I find it entirely hilarious how the entire internet becomes an expert on something seemingly overnight.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Sep 8, 2013)

rectifryer said:


> I find it entirely hilarious how the entire internet becomes an expert on something seemingly overnight.




This thread is proof to the incorrectness of that comment.


----------



## rectifryer (Sep 8, 2013)

Dave_Magos said:


> This thread is proof to the incorrectness of that comment.


Humor me with a specific example in which someone here has, at least, referenced an actual scientific study from an unbiased source that was peer reviewed that supports their claims. 

Most comments have been "appeals to authority".


----------



## flint757 (Sep 8, 2013)

Dave_Magos said:


> The question you should ask yourself is are you ok with the Natural order of Organics being replaced with those of GMO Origin?
> 
> I ask because GMOs are designed for one thing and one thing only, to win.
> 
> ...



I have no relevant opinion on the matter as my fields of study are engineering and drafting not biology. My point is you don't seem to realize GMO's don't just apply to plants. There is no blanket bad or good here either which has been really my only point made in this thread. That'd be like saying lobotomies are bad so all brain surgery is as well.

It's this statement I was contesting. 



> The Science of GMO's is collapsing.


----------



## vansinn (Sep 9, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> Explorer, you said earlier in the thread that genes were 'jumping' from GM corn to weeds? If genes can jump, than there's a good possibility that we've been eating GM foods this whole time?



Exactly. About jumping genes, read up on Barbara McClintock who was the first (to my knowledge) to document jumping genes, and/or check:




groverj3 said:


> Yes. You are correct, sir. People who don't understand science are what drives the fear of GMOs.



Science also said there's nothing to fear about cellular phones; nevertheless, nowadays phones (iphone as example) do come with a warning..
Point being that claimed/portrayed science doesn't always represent true science, and more than often, studies are kept off the public record, only to surface later, and here too often showcasing some ooups..
My point to is that as soon as some science shows potential damages, it should be withheld until proper, non business model, scientific studies has been conducted and analyzed/scrutinized.



> Monsanto isn't exactly an angel as far as their business practices, but the science is sound.



If considering the pure science maybe, but Monsanto's ways of using such sciences are derived directly from their business practices..


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Sep 9, 2013)

More bad science in the service of anti-GMO activism « Science-Based Medicine

Bad science in the paper &#8216;A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet&#8217; | Myles Power (powerm1985)

Anti-GMO horde trumpets new article, mischaracterizes results

NeuroLogica Blog » The GM Corn Rat Study

Read this carefully:

genetically modified organisms | The Winnipeg Skeptics

The strong anti-GMO sentiment today really disturbs me. People pretty much just mime shit they've heard or read on some copy/pasted blogs citing cherry picked studies.

Explorer really surprised me on this one, citing that blog which Gorski, Novella and others had already discredited. Most of this "protection act" is bullshit hype. But, ya know, I really think they do need federal protection at this point with all the Monsanto hate from literally *everybody*. My friends post this shit all the time. "Monsanto is evil!" on and on and on. They also say don't trust the "mainstream media", yet every goddamn article they post which addresses GMO is some mainstream news source, and never a credible source for science. Or they might cite "italy outlawed gmo, see! its evil!" Italy has been pretty anti-science since, forever. Do politicians really decide what's true or not? Laws don't mean shit in science. Doing science determines what's real, laws don't decide science. I believe we have an ignorant population deciding on matters they really don't even understand, and they fear it because of that. I think people who actually do the research in biochem have a much better understanding of this stuff than any of us on a goddamn guitar forum.


----------



## rectifryer (Sep 9, 2013)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> More bad science in the service of anti-GMO activism « Science-Based Medicine
> 
> Bad science in the paper A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet | Myles Power (powerm1985)
> 
> ...


I don't necessarily agree with the fundamentals of your argument but I am relieved someone is as frustrated by slacktivism as I am.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 21, 2013)

rectifryer said:


> Humor me with a specific example in which someone here has, at least, referenced an actual scientific study from an unbiased source that was peer reviewed that supports their claims.
> 
> Most comments have been "appeals to authority".



Just for grins, here's a few pics from the peer reviewed studies, the first from the piggery study.







Here's the pics from the peer-reviewed rat study. These pictures, appropriately labeled resulted from either a GMO-only diet, or a combination of GMO and Roundup. Here's the peer-reviewed study.






From a decent, straightforward summary:



> The researchers sought to determine how eating Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn affected rats' health. And they wanted to figure out whether any effects came from the corn itself or any Roundup traces that might come with it. So they separated 200 rats into ten groups: three that had part of their standard lab-rat diet replaced at varying levels (maximum 33 percent) with Roundup Ready corn that had been treated with Roundup in the field; three getting the same feed protocol, but with untreated Roundup Ready corn; three getting no GMO corn but tiny amounts of Roundup in their drinking water at varying levels; and one control group ate two-thirds standard lab-rat chow and one-third non-GMO corn. Each group contained 10 females and 10 males.
> 
> 
> So what happened? The researchers say their results, summarized here, show "severe adverse health effects including mammary tumors and kidney and liver damage, leading to premature death," in both from both Roundup Ready corn and Roundup itself, "whether they were used separately or together." Interestingly, almost all of the ill effects manifested after 90 days&#8212;the industry's preferred length for its own feeding studies. By the end of the study, the researchers report, "50 percent-80 percent of the females had developed large tumors compared to 30 percent in the control group." As for males, "Liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than in the control group &#8230; [and] there were also 1. &#8211;2.3 times more instances of 'marked and severe' kidney disease." Overall, among the rats receiving GMO and/or Roundup, "Up to 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, before deaths could be put down to normal ageing, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."


*For those who are ready to just poke holes in such studies, here's the big question:*

*Where are the independent studies (not criticism, but actual scientific studies) which duplicate the protocols and lengths (rather than ending at the 90 days of industry studies, just prior to when effects really start to show), but which show the results are wrong?*


To ask in a different way:


*If these products are safe, why aren't these companies allowing good research to that effect? Why aren't they making these products available for independent testing?*


----


BTW, I liked some earlier posts which assumed that no one here works with this particular subject, and that we're all just instant internet experts. *laugh* When I talk about the impossibility of getting actual product to do research with, I'm not just talking about something I read on the internet....


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 21, 2013)

An NSFW warning next time, please and thank you.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 22, 2013)

Whoops! Sorry!

(Is there a way to do like a spoiler cover on that stuff?)

Hopefully there won't be any more comments about a lack of peer-reviewed studies, especially ones would be replicable if the patent holders actually allowed them to be replicated.

----

BTW... did you know the patent holders, five companies, just dropped $45 million into advertising to defeat Washington State'sI-522, which allows consumers to know and choose what they want to eat by requiring labeling? Providing material to show the products are safe should be cheaper than suppressing someone's right to know what they're eating, no? *laugh*


----------



## Explorer (Sep 28, 2013)

I did a little further research, and found that the rat study followed perfectly all the protocols laid out by Monsanto, except that the study wasn't cut off at 90 days. 

In other words, Monsanto felt that the design protocols were well designed, and could determine the safety of their products, but can't clearly point that out when objecting to the study because doing so undermines their arguments against it. 

----

Ever notice how product packaging changes, to announce new toys in cereal boxes, or just to freshen things up and stand out?

Apparently doing such changes hasn't been a problem over the years, but now, suddenly, will introduce a crippling cost if labeling GMO foods (a few words) will be required in Washington State.

How in the world a bit of ink would cost more than making a tiny Captain Crunch figurine, and announcing it on the box with a picture, makes no sense to me. Am I the only one who thinks this might be a lie to score political points?

And, if they're willing to lie to sway opinion on this, why would you think they're telling the truth on everything else?


----------



## technomancer (Sep 28, 2013)

Pulled the nasty images...

Explorer you may want to read the articles about three posts above yours pointing out some pretty major flaws in the studies you posted.

I'll add this one

Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned - health - 19 September 2012 - New Scientist



New Scientist said:


> Update: Six French scientific academies issued a statement on 19 October, saying the Séralini study could not reverse previous conclusions that this and other GM crops are safe, because of problems with the experimental design, statistical analysis and animals used, and inadequate data. Meanwhile the European Food Safety Authority declared the study "of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment". As promised, the organisation invited Séralini "to share key additional information". That invitation was made on 4 October, and repeated on 19 October. Today, EFSA announced it had (again) made all the data it used to approve the GM maize available to Séralini.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Oct 1, 2013)

Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned - health - 19 September 2012 - New Scientist

Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220380600682215

Average impact on yield, by technology, for developed and developing countries : Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops : Nature Biotechnology : Nature Publishing Group

Again, there are many benefits to gm crops and we all benefit from them overall. For the environment, for yield, for quality, for the health of the crops themselves. People are trippin' over manufactured hysteria. We also have over 20 years of research that backs up the claim that GM crops are safe.

And there is this:

snopes.com: Monsanto Protection Act

Note the section which describes the crux of the argument everyone's throwing around. That Mansanto has the right to continue to use the crops which everyone has their panties in a bunch about until the claims that they are unsafe can be produced. It protects them from radical hippies who like to destroy farmer's crop fields and Monsanto's own test fields. The small portion of the bill which people call the MPA is not a big deal at all. It's just that anti-gmo groups are trying to use the legal system to disrupt science-based and proven technologies. They don't like it because it doesn't fit their arbitrary meaning of "natural." Technophobes and chemophobes abound.


----------



## skeels (Oct 2, 2013)

I got two words.

Soylent. Green.

And corruption. Three words.


----------



## Discoqueen (Oct 2, 2013)

> A hell with socialized healthcare and gays...


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Oct 7, 2013)

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, the stuff about Monsanto being sue happy is all BS as well. Read the above article and you will see that everything you read about how Monstanto goes about defending it's patents is misinformation. A smear campaign.

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

There are no terminator seeds. They were never marketed. Farmers have plenty of options other than Monsanto for seeds.

And in the latest SGU podcast Dr. Novella discusses many of the claims against Monsanto and sets them straight.

The Skeptics&#8217; Guide to the Universe | The Skeptics Guide to the Universe | Page 429


----------



## Andromalia (Oct 7, 2013)

My grandma also could make a blog with stupid statements, that wouldn't make them valid nor worth using a sources for argumentation.
If Monsanto argues for the GMO not to appear on packages, there's a cat. Simple as that. People do not want them and Monsanto is trying to trick them into a position where they can't go back.
A company with nothing to hide would certainly not object to proper labeling.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Oct 7, 2013)

That is faulty logic, sir. Deciding to go with the *traditional* approach to labeling food does not equate to hiding anything. You are simply distrustful of the corporation as everyone else because Monsanto doesn't care about public image. They care about researching biotech, so the money goes there.

They do have "proper" labeling. Your use of "proper" is loaded. Their foods are properly labeled, as per the law. Much like my how my friends argue, when their main points are shot down they bring in something irrelevant to the topic at hand such as food labeling and ignore the evidence. FFS.


----------



## NixerX (Oct 12, 2013)

As far as labeling ... I want the choice. If you don't feel that GMOs aren't any different then great..knock yourself out. The choice dose not effect you. Those of us that believe a company should NOT own genes or living things would like the option of not supporting this abomination. 

Furthermore GMO Has gone far beyond hybridization. When you introduce a gene from another creature all together the result is a NEW organism with undocumented ramifications. What's so hard to understand about that? I'll take my veggies w/o animal or microbe DNA.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Oct 13, 2013)

NixerX said:


> As far as labeling ... I want the choice. If you don't feel that GMOs aren't any different then great..knock yourself out. The choice dose not effect you. Those of us that believe a company should NOT own genes or living things would like the option of not supporting this abomination.
> 
> Furthermore GMO Has gone far beyond hybridization. When you introduce a gene from another creature all together the result is a NEW organism with undocumented ramifications. What's so hard to understand about that? I'll take my veggies w/o animal or microbe DNA.




Hahaha I absolutely agree.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Oct 15, 2013)

"I'll take my veggies w/o animal or microbe DNA."

Sir, all of your objections are out of fear. They are emotional responses to what you don't understand. If you don't like thinks mucking with DNA then you must have an insane fear of just about every endogenous retrovirus that is currently in your body. Viruses naturally swap out chunks of DNA in its host organism.

You want the choice? It sounds like people just want their "team" team NATURE! (YAY!!!) to be everything everywhere when it is not practical. Without GMO crops we would not be able to feed everyone with earth's current population. We do not have enough airable land. Unless you want to be the one who makes the call the tear down more rain forrest and wipe out some jungles so ya'll can grow your crops in whatever arbitrary naturalistic ways you want.

edit: Why don't people give up just about all the foods they currently eat if they don't want GM crops? Most of the fruits and veggies we eat are. Humans have been modding their crops for thousands of years. You wouldn't eat a banana before our ancestors got a hold of it...

edit 2: Also, Monsanto doesn't own life. It owns specific strains and genes it *created* and protecting those assets via our legal system. The objections against this are ridiculous. If you object against this, then to be consistent, you should object against just about everything else too...


----------



## NixerX (Oct 15, 2013)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> "I'll take my veggies w/o animal or microbe DNA."
> 
> Sir, all of your objections are out of fear. They are emotional responses to what you don't understand. If you don't like thinks mucking with DNA then you must have an insane fear of just about every endogenous retrovirus that is currently in your body. Viruses naturally swap out chunks of DNA in its host organism.
> 
> ...




I do understand and this is why I do fear GMO's. Any rational being should. Equating a virus with a food source doesn't really help your argument. Using that argument one could say the same for humans. Eat a steak. Body turns cow DNA in to people DNA same with veggies. The difference is the virus made the jump. It found the right set of circumstances for mutation. This happened naturally not with the aid of a lab and yes funding. Ill pass on examples like this: Gene transfer and cauliflower mosaic ... [J Environ Sci Health B. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

The same amount of conventional crop would take the same amount of acreage as a GMO crop. Regarding yields, the jury is out on that one and you know it. Yes Team Nature.

Again what you call modding is Hybridizing. Its not the same. When is a fish going to mate with a soybean? How do you splice a Furthermore these are selected genes creating a new organism. There are reasons why species cant reproduce. This fundamental.

This is what Monsanto owns. Certain things should be beyond our legal system as they were there before it. The only reason for a patent is to protect an investment and im not comfortable with a company owning a food source. 
Monsanto | Product Patents

You keep drinking that kool-aid.


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 15, 2013)

NixerX said:


> Certain things should be beyond our legal system as they were there before it.



Most things were there before our legal system. I couldn't resist pointing that out. 

I don't care if GMOs are labeled or not. I think Monsanto should just give in and weather the 12-month storm before people go back to buying whatever is cheapest. 

For the record, there are many more completely unhealthy and even dangerous things to ingest with quantified effects. I have yet to see well-conceived and well-reviewed studies on the impacts of GMOs on health, but I'm also willing to capitulate the point that Monsanto isn't doing a lot to make this happen.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Oct 16, 2013)

Equating a virus to a food resource? What the hell are you talking about? That is a completely nonsensical statement. I was merely demonstrating that whether the crop was modified via selective breeding or gene splicing the result is the exact same. We get a crop with the properties desired. It's not difficult to understand. The way in which we get there has no bearing. The desired effect was still had via natural means. Scientists don't break the rules of nature, they merely exploit them. They use natural methods. FFS.

Non gmo producing the same yield as gmo crops? Have you ignored every study I have posted? You clearly have. You are directly contradicting the studies I have posted with no sound evidence of your own.

Umm, how does the method in which genes can be manipulated and transferred into other organisms make the difference to you when the outcome is the same? You are arguing against the method. The technology itself, on the basis of it being unnatural. On the grounds that you have some ideal in your head that this stuff is just wrong and you have no real justification for hating it. 

Conventional crops need more pesticides, more care, more labour, more, more more. They have lower yield, and they have a higher loss per crop. Thanks for ignoring the peer-reviewed studies I have post (scroll up) just has just about everyone else has. That's very thorough of you. There are benefits across the board to GMO and there are currently no sound arguments against it. It's all idealogical jerks spamming misinformation.

About the gene transfer issue:

"The original versions of Golden Rice contained a CaMV promoter sequence (which has no other role than to direct a gene to be expressed), because during the proof-of-concept phase strong expression of the transgene was required. The new, released versions have only tissue-specific promoters that guarantee that the two transgenes are expressed only in the rice grain. Furthermore, the antibiotic resistance gene&#8212;, which by the way has been proved to be harmless and ubiquitous in nature&#8212; was introduced into a separate locus for the initial selection process, after which the gene was crossed out by conventional breeding. The final event contains only the two desired genes."

Strawman argument. They aren't even arguing against what is being used. They are arguing against a proof-of-concept which never made it to market, much like the "terminator gene" argument.

"You keep drinking that kool-aid."

Kool aid? I am more of a Crystal Lite guy. Thanks for basically stating that I can't think for myself. Very solid logical argument you have there. Also, thanks for revealing the conspiratorial nature of the anti-gmo brigade. They rely on false information, fallacies, and red herrings to get their points across. Whatever they may be.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Oct 18, 2013)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Without GMO crops we would not be able to feed everyone with earth's current population.


I keep seeing this quoted, therefore my question is (anyone feel free to answer):

WHAT DATA IS THIS STATEMENT BASED FROM?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 18, 2013)

I think Norman Borlaug said it, or at least that's who I remember saying it on the GMO/Organic episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit. I'm pretty sure the entire episode is on YouTube somewhere (if it hasn't already been linked in this thread, no less).

Ol' Norm's a bit of an authority on the matter, some might say.

Norman Borlaug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Oct 18, 2013)

^ Yeap. It has also been extrapolated by many others. Being that organic crops have a higher loss rate, require more pesticides, etc., (I refer to studies I posted earlier, again, please read the goddamn links to studies/science blogs) in order to produce the same yield. We would need a lot more land to produce the same amount of food as we currently do if we were to do it organically. Land with good topsoil is already on short and is currently shrinking. That is pretty easy to look up and isn't rocket science to understand. The current trend of organic farming is not sustainable. It's marketing.

Remember Mark Lynas? He's the guy who kinda led the anti-gmo charge early on. He has changed his mind regarding gmo.

Leading Activist Apologizes For Starting Anti-GMO Movement | Hawaii Reporter


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Oct 19, 2013)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Remember Mark Lynas? He's the guy who kinda led the anti-gmo charge early on. He has changed his mind regarding gmo.
> 
> Leading Activist Apologizes For Starting Anti-GMO Movement | Hawaii Reporter


Hadn't actually heard of him before he started apologizing, and then, precious little I've heard of him since. But this article now makes me want to review his bank records for the past 5 years.


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 19, 2013)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Hadn't actually heard of him before he started apologizing, and then, precious little I've heard of him since. But this article now makes me want to review his bank records for the past 5 years.



Right? It's not like anyone could possibly change their minds in light of new evidence. Must be some bribery going on.


----------

