Genetically Modified Foods

[The Corparation]

what i find shocking is that no one here is marveling at the fact that you can take a gene from a shark and place it in a freaking potato! do we all take it for granted that all life on earth uses a universal code? Life is but the rearrangement of this universal code. How can we say that it is unnatural for a gene to placed in a collection of other genes that more or less happened by accident. what would be unnatural is if various formed of life used different genes or even some other forms of base pairs and then trying to mix and match those. you dont cry when someone takes the letter "t" from "cat" and sticks it in "hat" to form the word "that". its not a perfect metaphor but my point one cant cry how unnatural it is for them to form up how ever they do whether through mutation or engineering.

needless to say im all for GMO and of course we as humans should do this wisely and careful. dont want to almost end the world again http://www.cracked.com/article_18503_how-biotech-company-almost-killed-world-with-booze.html

I fail to see how that company almost ended the world. They tested what they made like any research laboratory would do, found that it didn't work the way they wanted and would of backfired horribly, and didn't use it.

[Wikkiwallana]

Bullshit. It's possible to do, but so far no one has been crazy and/or desperate enough.


Ok, let's stop growing wheat outside Levant, maize and potatoes outside the Americas, and rice outside southeastern China. The unfathomable starvation will be worth it to make sure we don't disrupt any ecosystems. Because fuck human life, it's the nonsapients that really matter.

Do we not occupy the same ecosystems? If we do, I hope we'd be able to protect them.

Edit: btw

We've already established that farms are not ecosystems. Farmers do not grow their crops outside of farms. Can you see where this is going?

As for protecting ecosystems, I love that idea, but, like any, it can be taken too far. They should be protected to the extent that it benefits our own survival, any further is stupid.

Finally, as I pointed out to you earlier: Reductio ad absurdum

[Alekera]

Do we not occupy the same ecosystems? If we do, I hope we'd be able to protect them.

Edit: btw

We've already established that farms are not ecosystems. Farmers do not grow their crops outside of farms. Can you see where this is going?

As for protecting ecosystems, I love that idea, but, like any, it can be taken too far. They should be protected to the extent that it benefits our own survival, any further is stupid.

Finally, as I pointed out to you earlier: Reductio ad absurdum

I never said farms are...

But farms, and many other human developments do have effects on the ecosystem. Not saying, 'i want to abolish farms and cities', which you're strawman led some to believe. But is a farm isolated from the ecosystem it lies in? No more than a human is immune to cancerous cells in his body. My point being, when you restructure the DNA of any organism, you create a new organism. In many cases when you release a non-native organism into a ecosystem which is not its own, it can become invasive and weed out the original inhabitants of the ecosystem which it resides in (which is why i put the links to the zebra mussels and anacondas in my previous posts; showing how things can go bad). Plus, I wouldn't necessarily trust a multimillion dollar corporation which pretty much has a monopoly on the genetic engineering market as well as having its hands in politics (people like Tom Vilsack who has his hands in deep with bio-engineering firms, even going so far as to defend "pink slime").

[Revolutionarily]

Oh good, this forum is still full of people who think labelling GMOs makes any sense.

To repeat what I've said in the last half-dozen of these: a "GMO" label is like an "Edible" label. Whether or not it's edible isn't the important information. The important thing is whether you should eat it, and neither of those labels tell you anything about that.

The green jellyfish gene is perfectly harmless; splicing in a Very Fast Death Factor production gene, probably less so.

It's so those that don't want to eat it don't have to without having to do extensive research themselves

[The Corparation]

Oh good, this forum is still full of people who think labelling GMOs makes any sense.

To repeat what I've said in the last half-dozen of these: a "GMO" label is like an "Edible" label. Whether or not it's edible isn't the important information. The important thing is whether you should eat it, and neither of those labels tell you anything about that.

The green jellyfish gene is perfectly harmless; splicing in a Very Fast Death Factor production gene, probably less so.

It's so those that don't want to eat it don't have to without having to do extensive research themselves

Except "This product made from a GMO" says jackshit. It doesn't say how or why the organism was modified.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Oh good, this forum is still full of people who think labelling GMOs makes any sense.

To repeat what I've said in the last half-dozen of these: a "GMO" label is like an "Edible" label. Whether or not it's edible isn't the important information. The important thing is whether you should eat it, and neither of those labels tell you anything about that.

The green jellyfish gene is perfectly harmless; splicing in a Very Fast Death Factor production gene, probably less so.

It's so those that don't want to eat it don't have to without having to do extensive research themselves

They can just check the nutritional facts. If they are morally opposed to receiving Omega-3 from anything but a fish, they can choose not to buy the steak.

[Sociobiology]

Oh good, this forum is still full of people who think labelling GMOs makes any sense.

To repeat what I've said in the last half-dozen of these: a "GMO" label is like an "Edible" label. Whether or not it's edible isn't the important information. The important thing is whether you should eat it, and neither of those labels tell you anything about that.

The green jellyfish gene is perfectly harmless; splicing in a Very Fast Death Factor production gene, probably less so.

It's so those that don't want to eat it don't have to without having to do extensive research themselves

wheat was genetically modified 10,000 years ago to make it easier to harvest, it also makes it incapable of reproducing naturally.
the list of foods that haven't been genetically modified is a hundred times shorter than the list of foods that have.
nutrient facts, ingredients, and inspected by the FDA, would be the things you need to know.

[Sociobiology]

We've already established that farms are not ecosystems. Farmers do not grow their crops outside of farms. Can you see where this is going?

As for protecting ecosystems, I love that idea, but, like any, it can be taken too far. They should be protected to the extent that it benefits our own survival, any further is stupid.

Finally, as I pointed out to you earlier: Reductio ad absurdum

I never said farms are...

But farms, and many other human developments do have effects on the ecosystem. Not saying, 'i want to abolish farms and cities', which you're strawman led some to believe. But is a farm isolated from the ecosystem it lies in? No more than a human is immune to cancerous cells in his body. My point being, when you restructure the DNA of any organism, you create a new organism. In many cases when you release a non-native organism into a ecosystem which is not its own, it can become invasive and weed out the original inhabitants of the ecosystem which it resides in (which is why i put the links to the zebra mussels and anacondas in my previous posts; showing how things can go bad).

with two natural unmodified untested animals released by accident.
Almost all farm organisms are non-native.
guess what didn't evolve in the US, wheat, cows, or European honey bees.

[Sociobiology]

Then why are you worried that GMOs are going to disrupt them?

Because it might possibly be killing/ weakening the pollinators? http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Could-genetically-modified-crops-be-killing-bees-2611496.php

except its not, and one of the ways you can tell is it is an article from home and garden, and not a journal or reputable news source.

Or stuff like this, where insects and weeds are building up resistance against Round-Up (which is suppose to kill the weeds and insects, but not the GMO crop). Like a bacteria or viruses resistant to penicillin. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

which would happen anyway

Edit: so after the weeds and insects are immune to Round-Up, the companies and farmers are going to have to resort to even stronger stuff.

welcome to the evolution arms race, it happens regardless of whether we use GM crops.

[Sociobiology]

Oh wow? Nature does good, well FYI Nature also does bad; pathogens, illness, birth maybe even humans ourselves which is why we humans have the ability to not only evolve but innovate. To do what nature can't do or do what it can at a faster rate, we built our own flying machines rather than wait for nature to evolve wings for us. We have invented prosthetic body parts instead of waiting for the ability to regrow them to evolve. Genetic Engineering is one of those innovations.

We also innovated the nuclear bomb, weaponized Ebola and smallpox... So your point is questionable when it comes to our innovations.

If we can genetically engineer anything we want to, should we? Should we not abide by a code of ethics when it comes to rewriting the genetic history of a species? Throughout the history of the Earth, most epidemics and ill fates have been caused by human interactions.

When the Spanish came to the Americas, the native population fell ill to smallpox. http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

When the anacondas (which were imported by man and not native to Florida) broke out of their captivity into the everglades, they began overpopulating and killing off many of the animals in the ecosystem. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-30/national/35440220_1_python-invasion-female-python-reptile-keepers

When the zebra mussels hitched a ride on the bottom of a Russian boat heading to the great lakes, what happened to the great lakes? They were soon overrun by the invasive zebra mussels. http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content=research_invasive_zebramussel&title=Invasive%20Invertebrates0&menu=research_invasive_invertebrates


To deny that foreign species can become invasive and disrupt an ecosystem, is to deny fact.

to deny you are living here alive and healthy right now because of genetically modified crops and introducing species is ALSO to deny fact.
Introduced species swing both way which is why we fracking TEST ALL new agricultural breeds and strains, however they are produced, before they are used.

Here is a fun game list ten native species used in US agriculture.
If your are not from the US you can substitute your country instead.

[Wikkiwallana]

We've already established that farms are not ecosystems. Farmers do not grow their crops outside of farms. Can you see where this is going?

As for protecting ecosystems, I love that idea, but, like any, it can be taken too far. They should be protected to the extent that it benefits our own survival, any further is stupid.

Finally, as I pointed out to you earlier: Reductio ad absurdum

I never said farms are...

But farms, and many other human developments do have effects on the ecosystem. Not saying, 'i want to abolish farms and cities', which you're strawman led some to believe. But is a farm isolated from the ecosystem it lies in? No more than a human is immune to cancerous cells in his body. My point being, when you restructure the DNA of any organism, you create a new organism. In many cases when you release a non-native organism into a ecosystem which is not its own, it can become invasive and weed out the original inhabitants of the ecosystem which it resides in (which is why i put the links to the zebra mussels and anacondas in my previous posts; showing how things can go bad). Plus, I wouldn't necessarily trust a multimillion dollar corporation which pretty much has a monopoly on the genetic engineering market as well as having its hands in politics (people like Tom Vilsack who has his hands in deep with bio-engineering firms, even going so far as to defend "pink slime").

Which is why we make them sterile. Seriously, have you not been paying attention?

[Divair]

Afaik, GM food is the only way we can efficiently outproduce our demand for food. So it's brilliant.

[Alekera]

We also innovated the nuclear bomb, weaponized Ebola and smallpox... So your point is questionable when it comes to our innovations.

If we can genetically engineer anything we want to, should we? Should we not abide by a code of ethics when it comes to rewriting the genetic history of a species? Throughout the history of the Earth, most epidemics and ill fates have been caused by human interactions.

When the Spanish came to the Americas, the native population fell ill to smallpox. http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

When the anacondas (which were imported by man and not native to Florida) broke out of their captivity into the everglades, they began overpopulating and killing off many of the animals in the ecosystem. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-30/national/35440220_1_python-invasion-female-python-reptile-keepers

When the zebra mussels hitched a ride on the bottom of a Russian boat heading to the great lakes, what happened to the great lakes? They were soon overrun by the invasive zebra mussels. http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content=research_invasive_zebramussel&title=Invasive%20Invertebrates0&menu=research_invasive_invertebrates


To deny that foreign species can become invasive and disrupt an ecosystem, is to deny fact.

to deny you are living here alive and healthy right now because of genetically modified crops and introducing species is ALSO to deny fact.
Introduced species swing both way which is why we fracking TEST ALL new agricultural breeds and strains, however they are produced, before they are used.

Here is a fun game list ten native species used in US agriculture.
If your are not from the US you can substitute your country instead.

I'm living healthy right now because I am cutting GMOs out of my diet, at least as much as i can. Since I've been eating healthy, like not eating fast food, GMOs, and eating organic I've lost quite a bit of weight and feel healthy. I don't trust the FDA so much, since aspertame, MSG, and other horrible things are still out in the open.

The game: Corn, Blueberries, strawberries, pumpkin, squash, cranberries, concord grapes, pawpaw, and many more...

[Wikkiwallana]

to deny you are living here alive and healthy right now because of genetically modified crops and introducing species is ALSO to deny fact.
Introduced species swing both way which is why we fracking TEST ALL new agricultural breeds and strains, however they are produced, before they are used.

Here is a fun game list ten native species used in US agriculture.
If your are not from the US you can substitute your country instead.

I'm living healthy right now because I am cutting GMOs out of my diet, at least as much as i can. Since I've been eating healthy, like not eating fast food, GMOs, and eating organic I've lost quite a bit of weight and feel healthy. I don't trust the FDA so much, since aspertame, MSG, and other horrible things are still out in the open.

The game: Corn, Blueberries, strawberries, pumpkin, squash, cranberries, concord grapes, pawpaw, and many more...

Organic crops are identical to those raised via more efficient methods, they just have a lower yield and have to be shipped farther. Also, aspartame and MSG are completely safe. I have a big jar of MSG in my pantry that I sprinkle in my cooking from time to time. It's delicious.

[Alekera]

I'm living healthy right now because I am cutting GMOs out of my diet, at least as much as i can. Since I've been eating healthy, like not eating fast food, GMOs, and eating organic I've lost quite a bit of weight and feel healthy. I don't trust the FDA so much, since aspertame, MSG, and other horrible things are still out in the open.

The game: Corn, Blueberries, strawberries, pumpkin, squash, cranberries, concord grapes, pawpaw, and many more...

Organic crops are identical to those raised via more efficient methods, they just have a lower yield and have to be shipped farther. Also, aspartame and MSG are completely safe. I have a big jar of MSG in my pantry that I sprinkle in my cooking from time to time. It's delicious.

Aspertame has been shown to cause some adverse affects if theres too much of it. http://www.ehow.com/facts_4896146_aspartame-side-effects.html

Same goes with MSG http://www.ehow.com/about_5066340_side-effects-monosodium-glutamate.html

[Wikkiwallana]

Organic crops are identical to those raised via more efficient methods, they just have a lower yield and have to be shipped farther. Also, aspartame and MSG are completely safe. I have a big jar of MSG in my pantry that I sprinkle in my cooking from time to time. It's delicious.

Aspertame has been shown to cause some adverse affects if theres too much of it. http://www.ehow.com/facts_4896146_aspartame-side-effects.html

Same goes with MSG http://www.ehow.com/about_5066340_side-effects-monosodium-glutamate.html

To surpass the 3,750 mg limit put forth by the FDA, a consumer would have to drink 21 cans of diet soda.

If you are drinking that much diet soda, aspartame is not your biggest problem. Terminal stupidity is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Safety

You still have nothing.

[Alekera]

Aspertame has been shown to cause some adverse affects if theres too much of it. http://www.ehow.com/facts_4896146_aspartame-side-effects.html

Same goes with MSG http://www.ehow.com/about_5066340_side-effects-monosodium-glutamate.html

To surpass the 3,750 mg limit put forth by the FDA, a consumer would have to drink 21 cans of diet soda.

If you are drinking that much diet soda, aspartame is not your biggest problem. Terminal stupidity is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Safety

You still have nothing.

Looks like our sources are conflicting one another.... hm? Oh, well.

[The Corparation]

If you are drinking that much diet soda, aspartame is not your biggest problem. Terminal stupidity is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Safety

You still have nothing.

Looks like our sources are conflicting one another.... hm? Oh, well.

Because Ehow is a source equal to the academic sources cited on the Wikipedia page. And the first quote is lifted out of your source. At least try and make a counterargument.

[Wikkiwallana]

If you are drinking that much diet soda, aspartame is not your biggest problem. Terminal stupidity is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Safety

You still have nothing.

Looks like our sources are conflicting one another.... hm? Oh, well.

Oh, no. Fuck the balance fallacy. My first source is one you provided. It's not conflicting with any of yours, you presented something that said something completely other than what you claimed it did. My second source is an encyclopedia article backed up by citations of actual, peer-reviewed scientific studies into the matter, whereas yours is a freeform webpage without one shred of evidence to back it up. This isn't an "agree to disagree" situation. This is you being without a leg to stand on. Either provide hard evidence, or admit you are wrong.

[Alekera]

Looks like our sources are conflicting one another.... hm? Oh, well.

Oh, no. Fuck the balance fallacy. My first source is one you provided. It's not conflicting with any of yours, you presented something that said something completely other than what you claimed it did. My second source is an encyclopedia article backed up by citations of actual, peer-reviewed scientific studies into the matter, whereas yours is a freeform webpage without one shred of evidence to back it up. This isn't an "agree to disagree" situation. This is you being without a leg to stand on. Either provide hard evidence, or admit you are wrong.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802046/

Happy?

[Sociobiology]

to deny you are living here alive and healthy right now because of genetically modified crops and introducing species is ALSO to deny fact.
Introduced species swing both way which is why we fracking TEST ALL new agricultural breeds and strains, however they are produced, before they are used.

Here is a fun game list ten native species used in US agriculture.
If your are not from the US you can substitute your country instead.

I'm living healthy right now because I am cutting GMOs out of my diet, at least as much as i can. Since I've been eating healthy, like not eating fast food, GMOs, and eating organic I've lost quite a bit of weight and feel healthy. I don't trust the FDA so much, since aspertame, MSG, and other horrible things are still out in the open.

The game: Corn, Blueberries, strawberries, pumpkin, squash, cranberries, concord grapes, pawpaw, and many more...

Corn, Blueberries, strawberries, pumpkin, and grapes are all genetically modified, heavily modified

maize, squash and pawpaws are not native to the US.
thanks for playing.

Oh and MSG is actually naturally occurring.

[Wikkiwallana]

Oh, no. Fuck the balance fallacy. My first source is one you provided. It's not conflicting with any of yours, you presented something that said something completely other than what you claimed it did. My second source is an encyclopedia article backed up by citations of actual, peer-reviewed scientific studies into the matter, whereas yours is a freeform webpage without one shred of evidence to back it up. This isn't an "agree to disagree" situation. This is you being without a leg to stand on. Either provide hard evidence, or admit you are wrong.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802046/

Happy?

I'll keep it in mind should I ever consider injecting MSG straight into my brain; meanwhile, studies of people actually ingesting it in the normal method, via their mouths, show no replicable problems.

[Alekera]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802046/

Happy?

I'll keep it in mind should I ever consider injecting MSG straight into my brain; meanwhile, studies of people actually ingesting it in the normal method, via their mouths, show no replicable problems.

A knife to the head isn't good, but its fine if you swallow it.

[Wikkiwallana]

I'll keep it in mind should I ever consider injecting MSG straight into my brain; meanwhile, studies of people actually ingesting it in the normal method, via their mouths, show no replicable problems.

A knife to the head isn't good, but its fine if you swallow it.

You don't know how tempting it is now to link to the wikipedia article about sword swallowing. Seriously though, that's how the human body works: eating something can be totally different from having it directly introduced to your blood stream. Between stomach acid, digestive enzymes, the selective permeability of the small intestine, and the blood brain barrier, the two routes aren't even remotely comparable.

[Bodangus]

Mankind loves itself so much it now believes it can have a say in the composition of the food we eat but we cant feed the hungry.