Genetically Modified Foods

[The Corparation]

1) There's a huge difference between selective breeding and direct genome manipulation. Simply put, selective breeding allows natural forces to modify the plant... well, naturally. Whereas direct manipulation is done by people who may have an imperfect knowledge (we still have a lot to learn about genetics), don't really know what they're doing... etc.

3) I should think that would be obvious: it tells you that a private corporation tampered with it on a basic level. Food companies will ad sugar to school milk to make kids drink more of it, peddle "diet" sodas which give you diabetes, and all manner of other nasty things to make a profit. When it comes to what I put in my body, I don't trust them much farther than I can throw them. How do I know they're not purposefully removing the nutrition from it so that it doesn't make you full, and you buy more? Or modifying it to be addictive? You get the point.

1)Nature did not produce the change from corn to its ancestors. It was people going by hand and cross pollinating two different strains of the grain that would of otherwise never have bred, to produce a new strain with the pros of both parent strands. And I beg to differ on us not knowing a lot about genetics. We have a lot to learn, but we also know a lot. We know enough to be able to look at a diseases resistant strain's genome, find the gene that makes it resistant to that disease, and then put it into a new plant to make it resistant to disease.
3)So basiclly its hur dur big evil corporation trying to poison me and the earth paranoia.... Right. Because what you've described, making the plants less nutrituous, is the exact opposite of what they're trying to do. And they don't need to modify the organism to have addictive substances, they can do so with additives used in processing the food, although they don't, they have advertising to get you hooked on their product. A lot of the food addiction stuff has to do more with psychology than anything actually in the food.

[The Corparation]

Well, the weeds and bugs are developing resistance to the pesticide. So, more will have to be added anyway.

Plus the internal pesticides tend to kill the pollinators...

A good chunk of the GMOs made are sterile, it takes a lot of money to genetically engineer a crop to have certain traits, and the companies that do so use everything they can to grind that money out of the farmers. This means forcing them to buy new seeds every year. Its a shitty business practice and my only real gripe against GM foods. Although I do get the reasoning behind it. Its the same reason why many prescription drugs cost a lot to make but have cheap ingredients, the cost of development is massive and they need to make the money back.

[United States of Cascadia]

More importantly, there is not a single farmed plant that is not genetically modified, after all, selective breeding is the very definition of genetic modification. The only difference is modern methods are significantly faster than selective breeding.

And much more intensive and rapid with unknown long-term consequences. There's a big difference between 10,000 years of selective breeding and compressing that same progress into 10 years' worth.

Yes, one is faster. Selective breeding often cause movement of genes you want, but often many you may not want. Modern methods allow only one gene to be transplanted if we want. That allows far safer foods. In the end, the same gene would end up in the species, I would much prefer it to be faster and more accurate than slow and less precise.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

I only eat GMO

GMO is the way to go~

[United States of Cascadia]

1) There's a huge difference between selective breeding and direct genome manipulation. Simply put, selective breeding allows natural forces to modify the plant... well, naturally. Whereas direct manipulation is done by people who may have an imperfect knowledge (we still have a lot to learn about genetics), don't really know what they're doing... etc.

3) I should think that would be obvious: it tells you that a private corporation tampered with it on a basic level. Food companies will ad sugar to school milk to make kids drink more of it, peddle "diet" sodas which give you diabetes, and all manner of other nasty things to make a profit. When it comes to what I put in my body, I don't trust them much farther than I can throw them. How do I know they're not purposefully removing the nutrition from it so that it doesn't make you full, and you buy more? Or modifying it to be addictive? You get the point.

1)Nature did not produce the change from corn to its ancestors. It was people going by hand and cross pollinating two different strains of the grain that would of otherwise never have bred, to produce a new strain with the pros of both parent strands. And I beg to differ on us not knowing a lot about genetics. We have a lot to learn, but we also know a lot. We know enough to be able to look at a diseases resistant strain's genome, find the gene that makes it resistant to that disease, and then put it into a new plant to make it resistant to disease.

The other thing is selective breeding puts the exact same gene into the plant, whether it is through modern gene implantation doesn't change the fact that the gene is now there. The same final result occurs, just through slightly different processes. The difference between the two can be shown quite well by comparing a printer for making a book and hand writing it; in the end you have a book, but that printer is a hell of a lot faster and more accurate.

[Sinaryt]

I see the racist cannibals are still peddling that stupid argument and i will have to add another to my list of ignore but seeing as i saw it and remembered something from quite awhile ago.

A boy with a nut allergy had a near fatal allergic reaction to a GMO wheat taco wrap because that wheat taco wrap had some of the ingredients genetically modified to include genes from nuts but that information was not placed on the wheat taco wrap plastic nor was it labeled GMO so there was no way to guess that there was any chance of that happening.

When the term GMO is used it is talking about methods of crossing genes between plants and animals that are normally blocked by natural breeding barriers, GMO is not the crossbreeding your parents did.

The Corparation for helping peddle that stupid racist argument that would require we actually be eating the black people for there to be any chance of comparison i am giving you the honor of joining my ignore list thank you for identifying your self as a racism agitator, good luck and have fun.

[Disserbia]

No problem, I do have a problem with the likes of monsanto, however.

[United States of Cascadia]

I see the racist cannibals are still peddling that stupid argument and i will have to add another to my list of ignore but seeing as i saw it and remembered something from quite awhile ago.

A boy with a nut allergy had a near fatal allergic reaction to a GMO wheat taco wrap because that wheat taco wrap had some of the ingredients genetically modified to include genes from nuts but that information was not placed on the wheat taco wrap plastic nor was it labeled GMO so there was no way to guess that there was any chance of that happening.

When the term GMO is used it is talking about methods of crossing genes between plants and animals that are normally blocked by natural breeding barriers, GMO is not the crossbreeding your parents did.

The Corparation for helping peddle that stupid racist argument that would require we actually be eating the black people for there to be any chance of comparison i am giving you the honor of joining my ignore list thank you for identifying your self as a racism agitator, good luck and have fun.

But the ultimate affect is the same. Cross breeding is the very definition of GMOs, you are trying to substitute your own definition in place of the actual one. Would you mind citing that case of the boy dying? Were there other possible things affecting this result, contamination can occur quite easily.

[The Merchant Republics]

I see the racist cannibals are still peddling that stupid argument and i will have to add another to my list of ignore but seeing as i saw it and remembered something from quite awhile ago.

A boy with a nut allergy had a near fatal allergic reaction to a GMO wheat taco wrap because that wheat taco wrap had some of the ingredients genetically modified to include genes from nuts but that information was not placed on the wheat taco wrap plastic nor was it labeled GMO so there was no way to guess that there was any chance of that happening.

When the term GMO is used it is talking about methods of crossing genes between plants and animals that are normally blocked by natural breeding barriers, GMO is not the crossbreeding your parents did.

The Corparation for helping peddle that stupid racist argument that would require we actually be eating the black people for there to be any chance of comparison i am giving you the honor of joining my ignore list thank you for identifying your self as a racism agitator, good luck and have fun.

1. Flat what? Regarding the cannibalism and racism.

2. Source on "kid with nut allergy" nearly died from taco, because you see, as a nut allergy suffer myself, I know: a) that sounds like bullcrap because allergies don't work like that, and b) that I'd have heard more about this through the grape vine (of fellow allergy sufferers) if it were a real story.

3. Naturally GMOs aren't usually created with genes that could have been exchanged naturally (largely because it would be cheaper to do so naturally if it was), but that means absolutely nothing in the grand scope of things. Yes, a potato and a shark would never mate in the wild, but giving a potato a gene from a shark is not going to make said potato a blood-thirsty predator. Genes don't work like that.

[Nua Corda]

1) There's a huge difference between selective breeding and direct genome manipulation. Simply put, selective breeding allows natural forces to modify the plant... well, naturally. Whereas direct manipulation is done by people who may have an imperfect knowledge (we still have a lot to learn about genetics), don't really know what they're doing... etc.

3) I should think that would be obvious: it tells you that a private corporation tampered with it on a basic level. Food companies will ad sugar to school milk to make kids drink more of it, peddle "diet" sodas which give you diabetes, and all manner of other nasty things to make a profit. When it comes to what I put in my body, I don't trust them much farther than I can throw them. How do I know they're not purposefully removing the nutrition from it so that it doesn't make you full, and you buy more? Or modifying it to be addictive? You get the point.

1)Nature did not produce the change from corn to its ancestors. It was people going by hand and cross pollinating two different strains of the grain that would of otherwise never have bred, to produce a new strain with the pros of both parent strands. And I beg to differ on us not knowing a lot about genetics. We have a lot to learn, but we also know a lot. We know enough to be able to look at a diseases resistant strain's genome, find the gene that makes it resistant to that disease, and then put it into a new plant to make it resistant to disease.

3)So basiclly its hur dur big evil corporation trying to poison me and the earth paranoia.... Right. Because what you've described, making the plants less nutrituous, is the exact opposite of what they're trying to do. And they don't need to modify the organism to have addictive substances, they can do so with additives used in processing the food, although they don't, they have advertising to get you hooked on their product. A lot of the food addiction stuff has to do more with psychology than anything actually in the food.

I don't think you quite get it. Breeding is the natural mechanism for gene manipulation. DNA knows how to assemble itself. Direct manipulation of genetics is done by people, and people have an imperfect knowledge.

Don't patronize me. Corporations exist to make a profit, and the only thing they have to answer to is their shareholders, most of whom don't really give a crap as long as their value keeps going up. Tricking people tends to have that effect. Thing is, we don't actually know what they're trying to do, because they won't allow independent research to be done on their products because industrial secrets or some such bullcrap.

[Sociobiology]

1)Nature did not produce the change from corn to its ancestors. It was people going by hand and cross pollinating two different strains of the grain that would of otherwise never have bred, to produce a new strain with the pros of both parent strands. And I beg to differ on us not knowing a lot about genetics. We have a lot to learn, but we also know a lot. We know enough to be able to look at a diseases resistant strain's genome, find the gene that makes it resistant to that disease, and then put it into a new plant to make it resistant to disease.

3)So basiclly its hur dur big evil corporation trying to poison me and the earth paranoia.... Right. Because what you've described, making the plants less nutrituous, is the exact opposite of what they're trying to do. And they don't need to modify the organism to have addictive substances, they can do so with additives used in processing the food, although they don't, they have advertising to get you hooked on their product. A lot of the food addiction stuff has to do more with psychology than anything actually in the food.

I don't think you quite get it. Breeding is the natural mechanism for gene manipulation. DNA knows how to assemble itself.

wow that has to be most ignorant statement I have heard this week.
1. Inserting whole genes is also natural viruses do it all the time.
2. natural does not equal good, poisonous almonds and yam are natural.

Direct manipulation of genetics is done by people, and people have an imperfect knowledge.

as opposed to nature which has NO knowledge.
you act as if we don't test these things.

[Sociobiology]

A boy with a nut allergy had a near fatal allergic reaction to a GMO wheat taco wrap because that wheat taco wrap had some of the ingredients genetically modified to include genes from nuts but that information was not placed on the wheat taco wrap plastic nor was it labeled GMO so there was no way to guess that there was any chance of that happening.

source.
sounds like horse shit, I can't picture a company purposely adding an allergen.

When the term GMO is used it is talking about methods of crossing genes between plants and animals that are normally blocked by natural breeding barriers, GMO is not the crossbreeding your parents did.

except in most cases it is, do you know what artificial insemination is?

[Alekera]

I don't think you quite get it. Breeding is the natural mechanism for gene manipulation. DNA knows how to assemble itself.

wow that has to be most ignorant statement I have heard this week.
1. Inserting whole genes is also natural viruses do it all the time.
2. natural does not equal good, poisonous almonds and yam are natural.

Direct manipulation of genetics is done by people, and people have an imperfect knowledge.

as opposed to nature which has NO knowledge.
you act as if we don't test these things.

nature knows how to regulate the environment better than man does....

[Sociobiology]

I was raised to treat them with extreme caution, and avoid them whenever possible. Now, I'm not quite sure what to think. One thing that makes me a bit nervous is that we simply haven't had the time to see what the effects are. It's such a new technology, and one we're eating to boot, that until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they're not harmful, I'm still going to stick with natural foods.

how about the fact we have been eating them safely for 10,000 years. I would like to know what you are eating you think is "natural"

If the ruling on patenting GMOs was reversed, and companies couldn't sue the pants off farmers for copyright infringement when seed blew into their fields, I'd be more tolerant as well.

I agree with this, I don't think they should even get patents for it.

But, they should be labeled.

you do realize that means nearly everything you eat will contain the label.
wheat has not been able to reproduce naturally since before the pyramids.

[Wind in the Willows]

Deleted.

[Sociobiology]

wow that has to be most ignorant statement I have heard this week.
1. Inserting whole genes is also natural viruses do it all the time.
2. natural does not equal good, poisonous almonds and yam are natural.


as opposed to nature which has NO knowledge.
you act as if we don't test these things.

nature knows how to regulate the environment better than man does....

No it doesn't, extinction happens all the time because of nature, 99% of all extinctions and all mass extinctions have been due to natural causes. nature does not know shit, it is blind force.

[Sociobiology]

All of them should be labeled as Genetically Modified. Also OP, you should state your opinion on the issue as well.

everything containing wheat, barley, corn or rice.
everything containing meat or animal product, save seafood, only about a third of that would be labeled.
most fruits and vegetables.
most nuts.

care to guess how much that leaves?

[Avenio]

nature knows how to regulate the environment better than man does....

The Irish elk disagrees. Most emphatically.

[Cameroi]

the problem is with the real reason they are being genetically modified and introduced. it comes down to making people in poor countries starve so that rich agrachem giants can get richer.
and if that wasn't bad enough, it is the natural diversity of natural food seedstocks are being threatened, meaning more famine for the poor so the very few that are already fatter then they need to be can get fatter.
it is the patenting of food genetics and the legal insanity that we are seeing as a result.

all of these problems need to be solved equitably before genetically modified food stocks are introduced, and the problem is, in a world controlled by corporate economic interests, they're not even being addressed.
they're not even being allowed to be addressed.
when universities were first developing the concept it was a fine romantic notion, to increase food supplies to keep pace with population growth.
if only that had been what it has turned out to be.
that's still a fine notion. the problem again is with the corporatization and trying to make it all be about little green pieces of paper, instead of people and other living things being able to eat regular.

[Wikkiwallana]

GM foods are short-term, can not effectively assess the risk of human eating GM food for decades.

Yes, we can.

[Alekera]

nature knows how to regulate the environment better than man does....

No it doesn't, extinction happens all the time because of nature, 99% of all extinctions and all mass extinctions have been due to natural causes. nature does not know shit, it is blind force.

its natural selection, meaning its suppose to happen that way. But when it comes to regulating any given environment, its better at creating an equilibrium than we ever could. What happens when man introduces zebra mussels into the great lakes? What happens when man introduces pythons into the everglades? What happens when man attempts to cross-breed the African honey bee and the European honey bee? Things go bad... So what happens when we introduce a new species of corn with an internal pesticide? Either it kills insects (including pollinators) or it allows an environment where the insects are growing a resistance to pesticides and thus make them harder to kill. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/pest-gmo-corn_n_1173321.html

[Wikkiwallana]

Yes, of course you start with a theory.

Thanks for pointing out that you really don't know what you are talking about. You don't start with a theory, you finish with one.

[Wikkiwallana]

Argument, argument. Let me offer my skills in moderation. FREE BROCCOLI! GENETICALLY MODIFIED AND NON-GENETICALLY MODIFIED!

Got any of that fractal stuff?

[Genivaria]

Can genetic engineering give me a burger that tastes amazing but is very healthy?

[Wikkiwallana]

um it's pretty clear you haven't had much education in biology at all, so I'm not sure why you're pretending to be super-knowledgable.

fyi that is not how genetic modification works.

It involves injecting DNA from other species into a plant.

Surgery involves drugging people into unconsciousness and slicing them open.

You can make anything sound bad by phrasing it right.