Monsanto
- Thread starter DRE
- Start date
OSS 117
Well-known member
Fruit in a market would rot only if there's bacteria present, bugs, past a certain ripening stage or exposed to hot and cold cycles. Strawberries given the dry climate of a store do in fact shrivel. My home grown strawberries do in my fridge. The goat and silk thread argument was lifted from a Discovery Science segment on a show with Morgan Freeman narrating. Only one farmer who has a background in genetics is doing it merely as a test. In fact that particular episode had a rerun two days ago.
turtile
Well-known member
Like already mentioned, rotting occurs due to organisms such as bacteria and fungi. They need specific conditions to thrive - that's why fruits and vegetables last longer in the fridge...
The mold you see on strawberries is normally the fungus Botrytis cinerea. Dryness is the key to preventing the infections. It's also a pest of grapes yet we get raisins...
The mold you see on strawberries is normally the fungus Botrytis cinerea. Dryness is the key to preventing the infections. It's also a pest of grapes yet we get raisins...
dangonay
Active member
You know what I want to see? A study done by qualified scientists that is then peer reviewed to ensure it was properly conducted. I don't want to listen to some woman rambling on talking about things she read on some web page somewhere.
She mentioned something I thought interesting, though. She talked about four popular oils that are commonly sourced from GMO crops (corn, soy, canola and cottonseed). Previously I suggested taking GMO and non-GMO foods and breaking them down in a lab to see what compounds are present and what the differences are. Well, do it with GMO oil and non-GMO oil. This will be even easier as much of the plant material has been discarded while the oil has been preserved. Run these oils through a mass spectrometer to see their composition and differences. If there are differences, then see if those compounds that are different are known to cause risks, benefits or are unknown (doubtful anything found in food would be unknown).
This is the same request I repeat over and over every time this discussion comes up. Why hasn't any scientist anywhere on the anti-GMO side ever been able to do such a basic test that any university student could perform? It's not rocket science to break something down and see what it's made of (at the molecular level). The anti-GMO people can't claim GMO's are unhealthy or cause cancer unless they can provide us a list of the ingredients in GMO's and their known link to causing these problems.
Again, some person rambling in a Youtube video isn't going to cut it for me. I need scientific evidence.
Jason
Well-known member
It's dangerous to start assuming that everyone you disagree with is disingenuous. It's a sign of too much time spent talking to people who think like you do.
It's scientifically proven that genetic engineering reduces gene diversity. We already know that when genes are more diverse, they're more robust. This is why inbred offspring tend to have greater health problems. Pure bred dogs are a good example of this. The problem isn't solely GMOs themselves, but how they're produced. Plants with low genetic diversity (carnations and dandelions are the exception to the rule here, though) have a much harder time tolerating drought, fungus invasions, insects, etc. compared to natural plants. This requires heavy use of herbicides, fungicides and pesticides, most of which contain chemicals known to be harmful or potentially harmful to humans.
Monarch butterflies are being killed off because milkweed, after being cross-pollinated from bt-corn, has made it toxic to them. Japan had to recall protein drinks because modified bacteria created a completely new amino acid (i.e., not found in nature) that caused quite severe mental and metabolic damage to hundreds of people, some of which resulted in death. They've since banned most GMOS.
Most of the "anti-GMO" crowd, as you label them, are not against GMOs. They believe consumers should be made aware of their risks, and labeling is one of the proposed ways of doing so. A good source of information on such risks is from studies commissioned by the FDA itself, or governments that require labeling or have outright banned them.
Now there are those completely opposed to the practice as well, mostly because once GM crops are cultivated it's next to impossible to keep them segregated from non-GM crops. This makes it next to impossible to keep pure non-GM varieties from being contaminated. Some consider that a huge environmental disaster in its own right.
Last edited:
erich37
Well-known member
Nature is perfect.
dangonay
Active member
You know, the first thing I searched for after reading your post was the Japanese protein drink recall. I clicked on a link, and I've cut & paste some passages from the page I was re-directed to:
"When genes are more diverse, they are more robust; this is why a pure bred dog tends to have greater health problems than the dear old mutt. Plants with reduced genetic diversity cannot handle drought, fungus invasions or insects nearly as well as natural plants, which could have dire consequences for farmers and communities dependent on GMO crops for survival."
"In Japan, a modified bacteria created a new amino acid not found in nature; it was used in protein drinks and before it was recalled it cause severe mental and metabolic damage to hundreds as well as several deaths."
"Monarch butterflies have also died after their favorite food, milkweed, was cross-pollinated from Bt corn which rendered it toxic to the endangered species."
Sound familiar? I'm curious which site(s) you read to get your facts, and if it was one of the same ones I came across. I'm even more curious about the Japanese drink recall. I tried to find an original source, but so far every single link I clicked on was just another anti-GMO site that mentioned the recall, but had no official facts about the recall. Surely there must be a Japanese news agency or government statement regarding it somewhere I can read.
There's a reason I want to see this report and it ties in with my earlier comments. If there was in fact a new amino acid, then it was something they obviously detected and isolated by analyzing the protein drink. So where are the analysis of all GMO products that show a list of things present (or not present). You can't have a symptom without a cause. In order to claim a GMO food causes health issues you have to be able to show which compound was responsible. And try as I might I haven't been able to find these studies, but this protein drink might be the first one I heard of.
As to the Monarchs, there are a lot of reasons the population is declining. To blame it solely on corn or Roundup is asinine. Here's a comment from a "leading" Monarch researcher about why use of Roundup is responsible for Monarch decline: "Now you are really hard pressed to find any corn or soybeans that have milkweed in the fields. I haven’t seen any for years now because of the use of Roundup after they planted these crops. They have effectively eliminated milkweed from almost all of the habitat that monarchs used to use."
Really? Almost all of the habitat? So I guess he's claiming that from Mexico to Canada that "almost all" of the available land has been turned into farmers fields? Or perhaps he can claim that Milkweed only grows within farmers fields and doesn't grow anywhere else? This is such a ridiculous statement it actually made me angry to know someone is spreading this garbage. There are many reasons for the recent Monarch decline. There is the natural parasite OE, there was unusual and unfavorable weather conditions or deforestation in Mexico. But let's forget about all these other factors - we can comfortably blame the entire problem on Roundup or GMO corn.
The anti-GMO movement is starting to go the way of the 9/11 truthers/conspiracy theorists. You can't even do a legitimate search on 9/11 events because the only results you get back are from the thousands of conspiracy sites who recycle the same information over and over. Google and Bing just aren't able to sift through the clutter no matter how you refine your search. Now the same thing is happening with GMO discussions. It's very hard to find good information because the extremists who are 100% anti-GMO anything are responsible for most of the information out there. And it's harder to find new information because the keep recycling and reposting the same things over and over. Even that quote above about the Monarch habitat I quoted. I tried it in a search and there are literally thousands of hits and the first 10 I clicked on were reprints.
I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. But they better have some scientific evidence to back their claims, not a bunch of quotes randomly pulled off the internet.
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
When a baby is born with its heart outside its body it's hard to believe that was perfect.
Jason
Well-known member
The Japanese incident had to do with genetically modified tryptophan, produced by Showa Denko ('84-'89), which resulted in an outbreak of Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS). Most of the deaths occurred here in the states, and thousands more were crippled. Of course, there are disputes over whether it was entirely the fault of genetic engineering, the methods they used, etc. Some contaminates were found in testing, but there's no concrete evidence either way, since Showa Denko destroyed the batch. It could have been a combination of the genetically modified bacteria, dosage and the filtering system used, for all we know. The incident was enough to make most Japanese cautious about GMOs, though. I'll have to find a research paper I did on this for a bio class, which has some good references. It may still be floating around on one of UCLA's servers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilia-myalgia_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showa_Denko#Tryptophan_contamination
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8895184
There's plenty more, simply do a search on "showa denko tryptophan" (or similar)
Last edited:
dangonay
Active member
^ I finally tracked it down after much searching- I had assumed it was more recent considering the debate over GMO's has really picked up in the last few years. However, even by your own admission nobody knows if it was because of the genetic modification, the purification process (from what I read they tried to save money by using less charcoal) or the contaminants by using open vats.
The issue I have with this is that anti-GMO sites who reference this case still claim with absolute certainty that it was caused by the genetic modification. How can I trust information provided by someone when they don't tell the whole truth? And this is the real problem - so many people want to find something wrong with GMO's that they use junk science, improper statistical analysis or even outright lies to promote their views.
A perfect example is that hack Seralini (the French professor in biology) who did a study that apparently found rats fed GMO corn (or water with Roundup in small quantities) died several times faster than rats eating non-GMO corn and normal water. Despite numerous scientists and organizations around the world who have condemned the report (and the methods used) people still refer to it and believe the claims made.
The issue I have with this is that anti-GMO sites who reference this case still claim with absolute certainty that it was caused by the genetic modification. How can I trust information provided by someone when they don't tell the whole truth? And this is the real problem - so many people want to find something wrong with GMO's that they use junk science, improper statistical analysis or even outright lies to promote their views.
A perfect example is that hack Seralini (the French professor in biology) who did a study that apparently found rats fed GMO corn (or water with Roundup in small quantities) died several times faster than rats eating non-GMO corn and normal water. Despite numerous scientists and organizations around the world who have condemned the report (and the methods used) people still refer to it and believe the claims made.
smartpixels
Active member
Similar threads
- Question
