Genetically Modified Foods

[Avenio]

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

Yes, but it will taste like chicken.

its natural selection, meaning its suppose to happen that way.

That's about as far from natural selection as one can get.

What happens when man attempts to cross-breed the African honey bee and the European honey bee?

A couple generations of hybrid vigour before they're bred back into passive domesticity?

[Sociobiology]

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.

hahahahha
so what directed evolution now?

But when it comes to regulating any given environment, its better at creating an equilibrium than we ever could.

its also better at destroying it then we are.

What happens when man introduces zebra mussels into the great lakes?

they followed the path laid out by natural selection and wiped out much of the surrounding wildlife, the same reaction they would have had if they had been introduced naturally.

What happens when man attempts to cross-breed the African honey bee and the European honey bee?

so now crossbreeding is not natural, because that rules out almost everything we eat.
wheat,corn, meat, fruit, and vegetables are all unnatural.

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

the same thing that happens when we spray crops with pesticide, except they are less prone to pollute the surrounding environment.
your ignorance highlights the problem very well.

[Sociobiology]

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

actually McDonalds already did that but no one wanted it.
"No body goes to McDonalds for health food."

[Alekera]

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

Yes, but it will taste like chicken.

its natural selection, meaning its suppose to happen that way.

That's about as far from natural selection as one can get.

What happens when man attempts to cross-breed the African honey bee and the European honey bee?

A couple generations of hybrid vigour before they're bred back into passive domesticity?

Survival of the fittest?

And since when has the killer bee been anywhere close to being passive? So am i wrong, that introducing a variable into this equation called nature does not skew the results?

[Wikkiwallana]

It's not playing with God's creation. He created this world, then set us free to learn about it for ourselves. I don't think that genetic modification will offend Him.

He didn't set us free, we became free by eating the fruit of knowledge.... but thats a debate for another time.

Anytime you introduce a nonnative organism into a foreign ecosystem, the after effects are always detrimental to the equilibrium of the ecosystem. When one alters the genes of any organism, they are, in terms, creating a new species. So, if we were to introduce this species into a foreign ecosystem, it will most likely disrupt the equilibrium of said ecosystem.

Farms are not natural ecosystems.

[Sociobiology]

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.

actually genetically modified food are partially responsible for the vast DECREASE in starvation around the world, see the green revolution.

and if that wasn't bad enough, it is the natural diversity of natural food seedstocks are being threatened,

we did that 10,000 years ago when we started breeding our own strains.
and we are actually doing things about that, see seed banks.

it is the patenting of food genetics and the legal insanity that we are seeing as a result.

agreed the patenting of genes is just stupid, it is like patenting latex.

they're not even being allowed to be addressed.

look up.

[East Catalina]

I believe they are a useful way to improve how we grow food. If anything, they should be encouraged and environmentalists should be happy- although it doesn't come without a cost (like the toxic corn), GM foods limit pesticide use generally. They also help make sure we don't flood the farms and rivers with nitrogen- look at western Lake Erie in summer for example as a result of that.

[Genivaria]

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

actually McDonalds already did that but no one wanted it.
"No body goes to McDonalds for health food."

.......bullshit

[Sociobiology]

actually McDonalds already did that but no one wanted it.
"No body goes to McDonalds for health food."

.......bullshit

look up the McLean Deluxe

[Chinese Regions]

Support, they were designed to be better.

[Wikkiwallana]

We do know what the effects are. If you successfully give corn a gene for producing omega-3, it'll produce omega-3. This isn't alchemy.

I'm pretty sure messing with genetics is just not that simple. There's been talk of promoting antibiotic resistance in bacteria, decrease in nutritional value, vastly increased potential for allergies, and any number of things. There's never been any studies done reguarding the long term effects on rats or other animals, let alone humans.

There's also been talk of anchor babies, death panels, W declaring martial law before the 2008 elections, and vaccines causing autism. People who know nothing about a subject love starting stupid rumors that make them look smart to other people who know nothing about it.

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

Yeah, we skip about 99,990 years of famine and death.

[Genivaria]

.......bullshit

look up the McLean Deluxe

It was apparently 4$.
Showing that Americans care more about their wallets then their own bodies.

[Wikkiwallana]

1)Humans have been breeding crops and animals selectively for thousands of years, selecting what traits they wanted and choosing to let them be passed on. We've been genetically modifying organisms for the entire time we've had agriculture. The only thing that's changed is we no longer have to wait several generations to get a strain of wheat that is resistant to X disease, and immune from x pesticide (Which allows for much less of x pesticide to be used) Here's a pcitrue of corn

ON the left is what Corn used to look like. On the right is what the result of genetically modifying a species similar to the one on the right to gave us. Its easier to cultivate, provides more food, and is more nutritious. The human population is increasing exponentially, GMO will allow us to make sure that the amount of food we're getting from a given bit of land goes up to help feed that population.

2)Not really going to argue with this one. Monasto really screws the farmer over, but its still not a reason to not genetically engineer better food.
3)What information does the label; "Made from a Genetically Modified Organism" tell you? Becuase I get jack shit from it. Doesn't tell me what the modifications where, which company modified it, why they made those changes, or any other bit of useful information.

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,

Actually, they are petitioning to be allowed to use non-caloric sweeteners so that they can combat obesity without giving up nutrition.

peddle "diet" sodas which give you diabetes,

Medically impossible.

and all manner of other nasty things to make a profit.

Actually, at least in America, food companies seem to be one the few groups to have realized dead people can't keep buying your products.

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?

Because fullness works off volume, not nutrient content. Otherwise, a multivitamin would make you fuller than a jumbo movie popcorn.

Or modifying it to be addictive?

How exactly would they do that?

You get the point.

That you are scared of things you don't understand? Very, very well.

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

There's also the fact that no one wants that no one want to be the ones responsible for Kudzu 2.0, Now with more untamability!™.

[Genivaria]

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.

There's also the fact that no one wants that no one want to be the ones responsible for Kudzu 2.0, Now with more untamability!™.

Just nuke the sight from orbit.

[Avenio]

Survival of the fittest?

You said 'supposed to be'. Which implies direction, which implies orthogenesis. The Irish elk would, again,

And since when has the killer bee been anywhere close to being passive?

Since Brazilian beekeepers helped breed the defensive behaviour out of the hybrids.

So am i wrong, that introducing a variable into this equation called nature does not skew the results?

Nature is not an equation.

[Alekera]

He didn't set us free, we became free by eating the fruit of knowledge.... but thats a debate for another time.

Anytime you introduce a nonnative organism into a foreign ecosystem, the after effects are always detrimental to the equilibrium of the ecosystem. When one alters the genes of any organism, they are, in terms, creating a new species. So, if we were to introduce this species into a foreign ecosystem, it will most likely disrupt the equilibrium of said ecosystem.

Farms are not natural ecosystems.

Did i say they were? no.

Farms cannot regulate themselves, they do not have an equilibrium. The only way a farm can survive prosperously is if there's a farmer constantly tending to his crop. In reality, if there were no farmer to tend to the farm, then nature will overrun the farm and reassert its dominance over the land.

[Napkiraly]

Consumers have every right to be fully informed as to the origin and nature of the products they buy. Hence, GMO foods should be labeled as such. I don't have any inherent issue with GMOs, I do however believe people should be informed regarding their status via labeling so they can make an informed decision.

^This.

Plus GMO's can help us make crops more resilient towards extreme weather and other issues and allow us to have to no longer us pesticides. Of course we should try to make it so that pollinators are not affected.

[Alekera]

Survival of the fittest?

You said 'supposed to be'. Which implies direction, which implies orthogenesis. The Irish elk would, again,

And since when has the killer bee been anywhere close to being passive?

Since Brazilian beekeepers helped breed the defensive behaviour out of the hybrids.

So am i wrong, that introducing a variable into this equation called nature does not skew the results?

Nature is not an equation.

Yes it is. Let me put it like this: Through years of natural selection and co-evolution organisms in an environment know how to sustain their environment. Ex: The grass eat up the nutrients from the soil it is on, the grasshopper eats the grass, the rabbit eats the grasshopper, the fox eats the rabbit, the fox excrements the remains of the rabbit, the excrements enrich the soil, and then the cycle repeats.... The circle of life if you will. There's a reason why the folks at the Galapagos islands are so stringent about non-native turtles getting on the islands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5284150.stm

[Tlaceceyaya]

You said 'supposed to be'. Which implies direction, which implies orthogenesis. The Irish elk would, again,



Since Brazilian beekeepers helped breed the defensive behaviour out of the hybrids.



Nature is not an equation.

Yes it is. Let me put it like this: Through years of natural selection and co-evolution organisms in an environment know how to sustain their environment. Ex: The grass eat up the nutrients from the soil it is on, the rabbit eats the grass, the rabbit eats the grasshopper, the fox eats the rabbit, the fox excrements the remains of the rabbit, the excrements enrich the soil, and then the cycle repeats.... The circle of life if you will. There's a reason why the folks at the Galapagos islands are so stringent about non-native turtles getting on the islands.

Your reasoning is entirely wrong.
Animals do not magically know how to regulate their ecosystem. If they suffer overpopulation and use up all of their resources, they die. Your post indicates an extremely basic understanding of the most simple parts of basic biology.

[The Corparation]

There's also the fact that no one wants that no one want to be the ones responsible for Kudzu 2.0, Now with more untamability!™.

Just nuke the sight from orbit.

Thank's to Mr "I don't want an orbiting Death Machine" Kennedy we sadly don't really have that as a practical option.

[Alekera]

Yes it is. Let me put it like this: Through years of natural selection and co-evolution organisms in an environment know how to sustain their environment. Ex: The grass eat up the nutrients from the soil it is on, the rabbit eats the grass, the rabbit eats the grasshopper, the fox eats the rabbit, the fox excrements the remains of the rabbit, the excrements enrich the soil, and then the cycle repeats.... The circle of life if you will. There's a reason why the folks at the Galapagos islands are so stringent about non-native turtles getting on the islands.

Your reasoning is entirely wrong.
Animals do not magically know how to regulate their ecosystem. If they suffer overpopulation and use up all of their resources, they die. Your post indicates an extremely basic understanding of the most simple parts of basic biology.

Your getting it all wrong, organism don't know how to regulate their ecosystem, but they regulate it nonetheless. You introduce any kind of variable into a self-regulating ecosystem and there's going to be consequences. Whether that by a swarm of locusts eating up all the crop, resulting in a smaller population, or if its done by killing off a certain kind of a consumer, which leads to less competition for food, which leads to overpopulation, which leads to starvation latter on. My understanding isn't "basic", its common sense, which is something you seem to lack.

[The Land of the Setting Sun]

My understanding isn't "basic", its common sense, which is something you seem to lack.

You know, common sense is what taugh us that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Or that heavier objects fall faster. Or that ships fall from the horizon. Or that...

[Alekera]

My understanding isn't "basic", its common sense, which is something you seem to lack.

You know, common sense is what taugh us that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Or that heavier objects fall faster. Or that ships fall from the horizon. Or that...

Too bad that wasn't grounded in science or logic, unlike mine, which is.