BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
If this keeps up Monsanto will buy XF and shut this place down. 
Monsanto
- Thread starter DRE
- Start date
DRE
Well-known member
lol I thought Internet Brands tried something like that already.If this keeps up Monsanto will buy XF and shut this place down.
EQnoble
Well-known member
So then you would not be against being modified yourself to require less food then I take it and not opposed to having that modification forced upon you?
it is more resource efficient to modify that which consumes the resources and produce and distribute less resources - than it is to modify the resources themselves which still require a high production of resources.
Jason
Well-known member
We don't know what the long-term effects of GMOs will be, so it's natural to be cautious.
Describing genetic engineering as an extension of natural breeding is, at best, disingenuous. The genetically modified genes are inserted into the DNA of a few plant cells, for example, in tissue culture, which is intended to re-program the cells genetic blueprint, conferring up completely new properties on the cell. This simply wouldn't happen in nature. The few cells that actually survive this process are treated with hormones so that they will differentiate into small plants that can transplanted and grown. Once they're growing, those that show high levels of the modified genes are favored and kept as candidates.
This process isn't necessarily dangerous, but it can lead to mutations in the plant's DNA blueprint. These mutations may alter the functioning of the natural genes in possibly harmful ways. It's not a precise process, and simply manipulating just one or two genes can cause multiple changes within the plant itself (pleiotropic effects). Genes do not act as isolated, but interact with one another.
We won't know just how good or bad an idea any of this was until years from now.
Describing genetic engineering as an extension of natural breeding is, at best, disingenuous. The genetically modified genes are inserted into the DNA of a few plant cells, for example, in tissue culture, which is intended to re-program the cells genetic blueprint, conferring up completely new properties on the cell. This simply wouldn't happen in nature. The few cells that actually survive this process are treated with hormones so that they will differentiate into small plants that can transplanted and grown. Once they're growing, those that show high levels of the modified genes are favored and kept as candidates.
This process isn't necessarily dangerous, but it can lead to mutations in the plant's DNA blueprint. These mutations may alter the functioning of the natural genes in possibly harmful ways. It's not a precise process, and simply manipulating just one or two genes can cause multiple changes within the plant itself (pleiotropic effects). Genes do not act as isolated, but interact with one another.
We won't know just how good or bad an idea any of this was until years from now.
Last edited:
DRE
Well-known member
How many people have to die from cancer before it's determined to be a bad idea?
Lucas
Well-known member
Watch the movie Yes Man Fix The World, it was sued by the the Department of Commerce and you actually got to look around a bit online to see it, but it shows how politicians actually find ideas at the cost of human lives, it's normal practice.
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
Tens of thousands of people a year get lap-band surgery to eat less food. If there was a way without surgery I could feel full eating just a cup of yogart a day, yes, sign me up.
Adam Howard
Well-known member
Don't be silly... Anti-gravity would get past that.... Now air... That's another thing to talk about *cough* patten *cough*
Jeremy
in memoriam 1991-2020
As I stated earlier, carcinogens increase likelihood of developing cancer, not guaranteed. There are a ton of factors that go into cancer and if someone develops cancer, you can't blame it solely on an outside factor. 3 out of 4 of my grandparents have passed away from brain cancer, this increases my likely hood of developing the disease. Its also believed that using cell phones can cause brain tumors. If I develop brain cancer, I can't blame cell phones or any specific industry for the cancer. The only thing we can do is to find a cure. And stopping genetically modified foods isn't going to cure cancer.
Cigarettes are full of carcinogens. When is the government going to determine its a bad idea and stop the production of tobacco products?
EQnoble
Well-known member
Smoking is a choice, eating is not.
Cigarettes MUST be labeled by law with a surgeon generals warning in the US so that an unsuspecting person can know...people who produce GMO fight to keep a bill from being passed requiring labeling those products as GMO.
Giant difference.
DRE
Well-known member
wtf @ cell phones causing brain cancer. Haven't heard of that. Now what if it's stuff coming from the genetically modified food we eat, that we are consuming in our bodies, reacting to the slight radiowaves from our laptops and cellphones that's causing cancer?
That would make a good sci-fi book. Monsanto would try to blackball the author though.
That would make a good sci-fi book. Monsanto would try to blackball the author though.
Jeremy
in memoriam 1991-2020
The link between cell phones and cancer isn't anything new:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
Life causes cancer.
smartpixels
Active member
Jason
Well-known member
They increase the likelihood of cancer because they're one of many factors directly involved in causing it. Some are naturally occurring, while others are man-made. The body actually tries to remove them from the body, creating reactions that make some carcinogens more toxic than they originally were. Sure you can't blame any single factor on the cause of developing cancer, a lot of it has to do with genetic predisposition as well, but it's fact carcinogens increase such risks by the damage they do to DNA in cells or the cellular metabolic process (which is one of the major causes of apoptosis). There's a reason we require cigarettes, for example, to show warning labels on packaging. Education. Some people will ignore it, but that's a conscious decision.
I agree, stopping GMOs won't cure cancer, but there's also no harm in people knowing the potential hazards behind the practice by labeling such foods, so they can make more informed decisions for themselves.
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
ALL regulation/red-tape is harm. You can't say there "no harm" in a new regulation.
turtile
Well-known member
It would cost billions of dollars to label everything that has been made from a GMO crop. 90% of soy is GMO. If you go to the supermarket, you'll notice most food has soy or a product derived from soy on the ingredient list. The process to go way back and identify where the soy came from would be a huge project and would require a giant task force.
It's much easier to label food that is actually non-gmo and allow regulators to confirm.
Viruses transfer genetic material naturally... Some plants have been found to contain viral genetic material from long ago.
With any breeding you're changing many genes. Just because a plant is bred by standard procedure doesn't make it safe. The chances of creating a carcinogen is extremely rare by chance.
What you should really be concerned about is regulation over known toxins such as aflatoxin B1.
Jason
Well-known member
If by harmful you mean to those who produce potentially harmful products, sure.
The actual labeling is the easy part.
Yes, the majority of what's sold in supermarkets here in the U.S. contains GMOs, mostly because of governmental policies that favor it. A large portion of those goods are produced by just 10 multinationals, most of which already affix warning labels to their products in other countries.
There are over 50 countries, which includes the entire European Union, that require GMO labeling -- nearly a decade now, for some. The infrastructure is already mostly there. The EU, for example, requires those that produce or trade GM raw materials, ingredients, etc. to pass information on to others in the food supply chain. Each authorized GMO is assigned an ID, which can be used to trace the route of a GMO from the farm to the final product.
I don't think anyone is arguing that simply because a plant was grown naturally it's safe. Rather, people are being cautious about the long term effects of genetic engineering. The field is still relatively young, and has the potential to bring consequences we haven't anticipated.
Sure, you're changing many genes when breeding. Natural / selective breeding only crosses organisms that are already closely related, respecting their common evolutionary origin. The outcome is more predictable and understood -- the resulting characteristics are not foreign to the species. To create a GM plant, scientists isolate the DNA from many different organisms, such as viruses, bacteria, animals, plants, etc. It's why you end up with fish genes in avocados, for example. Those genes are then recombined biochemically to make a gene construct. The difference is quite large.
The act itself isn't inherently wrong, and has even made life-saving advancements (e.g., DNA insulin for Type I diabetes). The process is still imprecise though, and introduces a new element of unpredictability. Hence some people taking a more cautious approach to the practice.
Similar threads
- Question
