|
| Thread: GMOs / Dark Act / Monsanto makes huge mistake again |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
posted August 22, 2016 06:07 PM |
|
|
|
I never eaten genic foods so I haven't problem with the Bible warn of rotten meat
|
|
frostysh
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 12:41 AM |
|
Edited by frostysh at 00:46, 23 Aug 2016.
|
Stevie -
The GMO and the Artificial Selecting, usually provide us with the same result, but a first one way is a more hard-core, is a much more fast way, is a much more advanced way, and if we talking about it, it is a more dangerous way.
i.e. You have a Lemon Tree (like a lemony skicket  stupid movie), and the Apple Tree. You make a something between, a something in the middle by taking a one branch of a Lemon Tree and the one branch of a Apple Tree, and then with a special conditions you put it together, after a hard work, through a decades and decades of years, a generation and generation of a selectivity chosen trees you will obtain a Lemon-Apple-Tree, that is more likely will not survive in the Wild Nature, but you do not need it for wild nature. This is can be called an Artificial Selecting. IMHO
But you can do it in the a hard way, in a champion way, and in at technologically advanced way -  , you put the genes of Lemon Tree and the Apple tree in the same pre-seed, and then you will obtain a tree-mix instantly. This I call - Genetically Modification Organism
The same tricks can be done with an any plants, with an any animals, with a monkeys, with a modern monkey and so on..
Quote:
Salmon (2001): The large one is GMO; the smaller one is not. The large one was genetically modified to produce extra growth hormone.
Identifying Spontaneous Mutations and Genetic Engineering - the resource is looks, little bit not good, suspicious,  , but anyway some interesting facts can be found there
As for myself I am praying that the Egg-heads guys will create a custom growing meat stuff, I will eat it regardless of the many dangerous just to not kill the frigging animals 
IMHO. and you mr/mrs Stevie, again underestimating the possibilities even of the large Corporation Research Centers and their abilities to predict a health risks GMO, and you again overestimating the your own possibilities to do such things.
I do not saying that we no need to talk about a dangerous of GMO, but there are many more important problems, which is like always have a pity attention comparing to the Hollywood Superstars - like GMO is 
Lord_Woock - Imho. I am hatting a mosquitoes I wonna to die them all , but of course a Scientists are much more smart than me, and they will predict some risks in the wild nature about of using of a genetic weapons against a frigging bloodsuckers.
Celfious -
1) This Mendel lived an eternity ago, the modern Genetics is in a state a far more advanced than the G. Mendel can imaged. IMHO. Anyway he looks like a funny guy, his works did an important things in their time .
2)The agencies is destroyed our trust - whahaha. What the hell you talking about? I mean is this frigging agencies do even care about the frigging single trust to them? .
3) Your Non-toxic Cannabis can damage a brains of a teenagers like bullet. . . (I have a bad humor, I know..) In general, Cannabis is a far more dangerous than it is described, of course the 80% of this danger is related to the brains which is still in the grwos and transform state (I think it's happens until a ~25 age), using the any brain-modifying drugs like a Cannabis is, in this time period, without a proper doses and medical control will lead this particular teenager to the somekind of a brain-trauma.
Marijuana
4) The Nuclear Power is the most efficient way to get the power that have a widespread through the Earth nowadays. IMHO. in the short The Nuclear Power is means, a very small volume of NPP itself, a very small volume of supplies, and it is leads you the a very large Energy benefits.
The Nuclear power can be used everywhere, that is including Submarines, Aircraft Carries, and so on. Yeah baby! the Nuke. the Dike Nuken .
But indeed the solar-power-plant stuff is a very good solution for a spacecrafts. And I did not understand the nonsense about the boy that created a fission reactor by his own.
5) I can not say anything interesting about the water Fluoridation, as for myself I have no such benefits, but I think the Egg-heads guys who is created such program is a very smart, and they already checked a many health risks of that particular stuff.
I mean there is hell lot amount of a much more important problems, that including a entire society health problems.
But As for myself, I think this Fluoridation is a stupid wasting of a resources And this is obviously making the Fluoridation Program a little bit suspicious, I mean there a very low probability that the Egg-heads will make something that actually are a resource wasting stuff. . .
6) Yeah, the cool name - Operation Northwoods, the secret documents that become the non-secret with a cool government signs and stamps and stuff .
The faces like this cannot lie to you .
 
And their officials, and the official papers will not lie to your trust too . Lol . . .
7) The GMO like technologies will provide the humanity with an advanced food production ways in the future, i.e. the meat without a growing of a cattle, the technologies like this one, can be a salvation from a many global issues, and it is almost necessary to avoid a many disadvantages of a large population on the Earth.
The any nonsense about a Greed, about a global treachery, and so on will not stop a new era of a Food, and Agricultural productions. IMHO.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 01:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
7) The GMO like technologies will provide the humanity with an advanced food production ways in the future, i.e. the meat without a growing of a cattle, the technologies like this one, can be a salvation from a many global issues, and it is almost necessary to avoid a many disadvantages of a large population on the Earth.
The any nonsense about a Greed, about a global treachery, and so on will not stop a new era of a Food, and Agricultural productions. IMHO.
I'm sorry but that's just plain naive. Their objective isn't to produce high grade food both nutrious and flavoursome, their objective is to pruduce it cheap as possible and easy to preserve with as few imperfections as possible.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 04:14 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:16, 23 Aug 2016.
|
Not always. There is Norman Borlaug and his famous Green Revolution, for example, you can say he is the Edward Jenner of the 20th Century:
In 1964, India was reeling from the death of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India. The world watched anxiously to see how the fledgling democracy would handle this crisis of political succession. However, there was an ever greater crisis looming on the horizon--Nehru had tried to fashion India's centralized economy by focusing almost exclusively on heavy industry, while seemingly intractable problems of food shortages and famines had arisen to plague the agriculture sector.
Two consecutive droughts in 1966 and 1967 threatened to bring on famine on a massive scale. The new prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, inherited a country on the brink of a human catastrophe. These developments seemed to confirm the worst fears of biologist Paul Ehrlich, who famously wrote in The Population Bomb, his 1968 bestseller: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," and "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also said, "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." He insisted that "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980."
Little did Ehrlich know that Borlaug and his team were already engaged in the kind of 'crash program' he had declared would never work. Working in Mexico, they had developed a special breed of dwarf wheat that resisted a wide spectrum of plant pests and diseases and produced two to three times more grain than the traditional varieties.
C. Subramaniam, then minister of Food and Agriculture in India, came to know of Borlaug's work. It was transparently obvious to him that this was the answer to India's crisis. Acting with great urgency, the Indian government took the plunge, and several chartered Boeing 707s loaded with 16,000 metric tonnes of seeds of the new 'miracle wheat' headed for the eastern skies.
Borlaug's team began teaching local farmers in the region how to cultivate this new strain of wheat properly, in both India and Pakistan. Borlaug's work is credited with sparking what has come to be known as the "Green Revolution" in these countries, defying all predictions and achieving an astounding increase in the production of wheat within the span of a few years.
Since Ehrlich's dire predictions in 1968, India's population has more than doubled, its wheat production has more than tripled, and its economy has grown nine-fold. By 1974 India was self-sufficient in the production of all cereals. Pakistan progressed from harvesting 3.4 million tons of wheat annually when Borlaug arrived to around 18 million today, India from 11 million tons to 60 million.
Link: Norman Borlaug: A Billion Lives Saved
Responding to questions on why he was advocating for an open adventure into genetically engineering at a time when most countries are preaching zero risk in respect to bio-safety, Borlaug dismissed the zero-risk idea, saying it was a non issue where only plant genes are concerned, and not chemicals. He said zero-risk is something that does not exist and not tenable in a biological world where things kept on changing.
Asked who is going to be concerned with the bio-safety once a floodgate has been opened for genetic engineering, he described people who have been championing a GMO-free world as "utopian thinkers" who do not understand the complexities of food production. "Dosage makes the poison. But vitamins, which are vital, are taken in smaller quantities. If we could get a gene from rice - because rice does not suffer from rust - and then use it to protect other crops that suffer from rust like wheat, that would be a big revolution, and that will not be dangerous to human health in any way," he added.
He said Africa is undergoing political instability because there is not enough food to feed the people. "We need more investments in agriculture and we must stop looking at agriculture as a donkey's profession," he said. Borlaug challenged African leaders to embark on productive technology that would ensure predictable food supply to their masses. "The so called GMOs can play a very vital role in peoples' lives. However, this must be accompanied by political goodwill because technology alone cannot survive without decisive support," he said.
He, however, called for the establishment of responsible government agencies to police the GMO imports.
Link: Norman Borlaug Blasts GMO Doomsayers
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 06:40 AM |
|
|
artu said:
@Corribus
What costly? Is it any different than listing the ingredients on a box?
I don't refer to costs incurred by industry (although those can be substantial): do you have any idea the cost for a government body to pass, implement, and enforce a new law and all its related regulations - especially one that universally applies to such a large business sector as the food industry? That cost is ultimately borne by the taxpayer/consumer, of course.
But the cost is mostly irrelevant to my question, which still hasn't been addressed by anyone. What's the benefit of a GMO label? Asking what's the harm in not having one isn't exactly a satisfactory answer. You have to define what the negative consequence is of failing to act in order to justify the action.
(This of course pre-supposes it is easy or possible to define in a scientific way what a "GMO-containing food" is. That's your technical problem right there.)
Quote:
Let me put it this way, when Muslims for instance, demand that they should be informed if a product contains pork meat, we say, ok, they have the right not to eat pork meat, so let's simply do that.
Most packaging labels like this are not compulsory and are purely driven by market pressure. Which is a perfectly acceptable way to do it. Why should GMOs be different?
Quote:
Refusing to openly label GMO products will only make people more suspicious about them.
So? Why does this justify legislation? If people distrust a company's product, the company will either (a) respond to what people want, or (b) lose business to companies that do respond. There are companies already in the US that voluntarily label their products as GMO free. (See: http://www.nongmoproject.org/about/). Most companies that go through the expense and trouble of acquiring such a label probably don't do it out of altruism or any scientific conviction that this makes for a healthier or safer product - they do it because they feel that to have such a label gives them a competitive advantage with certain demographics. If a large portion of consumers continue to demand GMO free food and extensive, scientist-managed verification programs to go along with labels, some companies would cater to this demographic and sell GMO-free (and more expensive) food to them. Nobody has explained yet what additional benefit legislation brings to the table over a market-driven solution.
Anyway, for various reasons it makes me uncomfortable to go into a lot of detail about my opinion on the matter. So I'll just leave that as food for thought (ha) and go back into moderator lurk mode.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 07:22 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 07:23, 23 Aug 2016.
|
Quote:
I don't refer to costs incurred by industry (although those can be substantial): do you have any idea the cost for a government body to pass, implement, and enforce a new law and all its related regulations - especially one that universally applies to such a large business sector as the food industry? That cost is ultimately borne by the taxpayer/consumer, of course.
Do you have any data that implies what the costs will be, how much the taxpayers will pay and how much the producers will pay? The argument that legislation will be costly is a prime example of grasping at straws otherwise - legislative bodies pass legislation, that's what they are paid to do. If there is significant demand for something to be regulated, then it should be.
Quote:
But the cost is mostly irrelevant to my question, which still hasn't been addressed by anyone. What's the benefit of a GMO label?
This has been answered actually - the benefit is knowing what a product consists of which helps you take a more informed decision whether you want to buy it or not.
Quote:
Most packaging labels like this are not compulsory and are purely driven by market pressure.
Hardly, here they are compulsory. Maybe in the US you can put even acid in a hamburger without being legally obligated to announce it but not in Europe.
Quote:
If people distrust a company's product, the company will either (a) respond to what people want, or (b) lose business to companies that do respond.
That's not how it works with products of vital importance and you assume a non-existent system of equal supply distribution and buying potential. There will always be buyers for food and water because many of the lifeforms on this planet can't survive without them. Such goods are inelastic. The prices can increase (to a certain limit, after which people would prefer to start stealing and forcefully taking them instead of buying), the production conditions and standards can worsen but as long as you don't sell a product which outright poisons the consumers or contributes to the growth of cancerous mutations in relatively short terms, there will be a stable market for what you sell, especially in environment of increasing population size and density. Food and water distribution are also not even across the globe so you have markets where you can afford to dispose of tons of spoiled or sub-standard goods and markets where they are in such a short supply that people are dying. This is partially (but not completely) related to the economic inequality where you can expect the cheaper - usually meaning lower quality - goods to go to the poorer countries, where possible. Producers of such goods thus have little motivation to "respond to what people want" because they have guaranteed markets even if their products are barely usable.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 08:47 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 08:47, 23 Aug 2016.
|
Well, I see Zenofex beat me to it, I mainly agree with his points. Basic information on food products is already obligatory, we wont be remodeling the infrastructure of the industry, we will only be adding one sentence in the package. I don't see how legislating that will cost significantly since the congress/parliament (depending on the country) won't be charging extra for this law. We already pay them to legislate stuff. As it has been mentioned by many including me, "the benefit" is very obvious. People want to know what sort of food they'll be buying and it seems wrong to me to deny them that, on a very basic, ethical level. What hasn't been answered actually is the question "why not be transparent about the whole thing?" The cost is really not a convincing factor by any means.
Market pressure, in this case, doesn't solve anything. Because people can't identify the GMO products and that's the problem. Actually, they want the label to be able to apply the kind of pressure you speak of. But telling them not to buy stuff if they don't want to, when an average store has all the fundamental food a person depends on, in "stealth mode" isn't exactly an open market, is it?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 12:47 PM |
|
|
Frostysh
Sorry for not responding to all of your counter points but I'll briefly say operation northwoods seems to pan out and on the cannibas thing, I wasn't talking about its usefulness as a recreational drug when it comes to its nontoxic uses.
Actually now that I think of it there are a lot of modified cannibas plants, but still not really happy every grocery store I go into I have to be paranoid about what I buy.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 02:56 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
legislative bodies pass legislation, that's what they are paid to do. If there is significant demand for something to be regulated, then it should be.
They are paid to pass useful regulations that have a clear and scientifically-demonstrated benefit to the public. Public demand in itself shouldn't determine what becomes law and what doesn't. It is easy to find plenty of examples of why this is a bad idea. The issue of vaccines is a very good one. A lot of people demand that vaccines not be mandated for children in public schools, and this is an extremely bad idea, and should never be made into law just because people demand it.
Quote:
Maybe in the US you can put even acid in a hamburger without being legally obligated to announce it but not in Europe.
You cannot do this in the US or in Europe, no matter if you announce it or not. This is either a deliberate strawman argument or it just means you don't know a whole lot about food safety regulations.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 03:08 PM |
|
|
The issue of vaccines is different. You got to have them in a certain age and parents shouldn't be able to decide such a thing instead of their children who are not yet capable of evaluating such a decision. It's directly a health issue with dire consequences.
Indirectly forcing people to consume GMO products against their own will by camouflaging them is another thing. No one may get hurt if some people choose not to eat them, so let them have the option.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 03:17 PM |
|
|
Vaccines and GMOs are two different subjects, one is related on public health and the other on alimentation.
Generally, the public shouldn't be able to decide on matters of health, and generally such decisions aren't taken by the parliament, or at least that's how it works here... Unless we're talking about cannabis, since that is going to win the vote of the zombie generation, go figure...
GMOs are in another jurisdiction, it wasn't the decision of our parliament that regulated them (if I'm not mistaken), as I believe it happened in other countries.
And besides, I thought politicians were there just to heat up a chair and talk all day, not to pass useful things for the public.
Great thing is they have a triple wage as I know, One payed by the citizens, another payed by their employers, and the other payed by lobbyists...
I need to enter politics.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 03:26 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 15:29, 23 Aug 2016.
|
Speaking of disguises and food, side note:
"I've heard" after the TPP they can sell a product called 'Switzerland alp natural water" but the water is not Switzerland, alp, or natural,
Regardless if that TPP rumor I heard is true, People who want to buy regular food should be able to. In other words people who don't want to buy GMOs yet or ever, should not have to face mystery at every product.
another thing labels would accomplish, is preventing the expansion of this Force taking over the worlds agriculture. patented
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 03:55 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 16:19, 23 Aug 2016.
|
Corribus said:
Nobody has explained yet what additional benefit legislation brings to the table over a market-driven solution.
The benefit is that the consumer is informed upon inspecting the product as he holds that right. I have already linked you with the right to be informed from the consumer bill of rights which specifically states: "Product information provided by a business should always be complete and truthful." Not labelling GMO or GMO-free is incomplete information and tramples the consumer's right. But you cleverly ignored me.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 05:55 PM |
|
|
One difference between GMO and nutritional labeling is that without nutritional labeling, someone may be misled into thinking that two nutritionally different foods are similar, and also they wouldn't have as easily available of an estimate of a food's nutrition. So people who are trying to eat less or more of a certain nutrient would have a difficult time. But that doesn't apply to GMOs, which are (with some intentional exceptions) nutritionally identical. But if they really are different, that can be captured in the existing "nutrition facts" column without labeling them as GMO.
Here's the slippery slope:
"If GMOs are safe, why are you afraid of labeling them?" -> GMOs are labeled -> "If GMOs are safe, why are they labeled?" -> GMOs are banned -> "If GMOs are safe, why are they banned?"
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 06:08 PM |
|
|
|
I think it's important that the buyer has the possibility to know what he's buying, and it's the sellers responsibility to make it obvious. Especially when it comes down to allergies and similar, but in general if I buy a pizza and I find a horse head on it, I'd like to be able to read on the package if it belongs there. The grey zone is when the distinguish becomes meaningless or at least not testable.. in my opinion.
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 06:11 PM |
|
Edited by yogi at 18:27, 23 Aug 2016.
|
@anyone proclaiming that parents shouldnt have control over what needles are stuck in their children can go snow off.
you people are way too snowing trusting of the powers that have historically enslaved you, i can only assume out of confusion for how to take charge of your own lives, or the immaturity to accept the fact that half the planet lacks the fortitude to deny their weaker instincts and are actively seeding selfishness and confusion.
every farmer on the planet knows that if an animal has to have its molars removed, its a result of malnutrition, but for people its evolution?
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html : ch 17 is the most pertinent.
"science" is not your daddy, omnipotent, authoritative. its an ever expanding school of theories that more often than not proves itself to be WRONG.
these days its just a marketing ploy by the highest bidder.
i say this as someone who spends all day in a usda lab full of mass specs.
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 06:29 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Here's the slippery slope:
"If GMOs are safe, why are you afraid of labeling them?" -> GMOs are labeled -> "If GMOs are safe, why are they labeled?" -> GMOs are banned -> "If GMOs are safe, why are they banned?"
That's no slippery slope, it's bad logic.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 06:31 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:34, 23 Aug 2016.
|
@yogi
Some parents are completely against any kind of medicine, should it be allowed that they let their 3 year old die because of a simple disease that can be cured by regular antibiotics? Parents don't posses a kid's life and cannot be endangering it out of their own superstition.
Vaccines are safe and they have been tested for centuries now. Using the falsifiability principle to mystify such mainstream facts is utter demagogy. Yes, theories can be proven wrong because they operate on testable probabilities. If vaccines having a harmful effect is so improbable that it's non-existent in practicality, you don't risk epidemics because some of the parents are extremely ignorant or paranoid.
And of course, if you have a better method of concluding if vaccines or GMO's are harmful or not, other than scientific ones, I'm sure you'll enlighten us all on what they exactly are?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 06:40 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
But you cleverly ignored me.
I didn't cleverly ignore anything. Aside from the fact that I don't think your posts addressed my questions at all: for professional reasons I shouldn't really post very much on this topic.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2016 06:40 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
mvassilev said:
Here's the slippery slope:
"If GMOs are safe, why are you afraid of labeling them?" -> GMOs are labeled -> "If GMOs are safe, why are they labeled?" -> GMOs are banned -> "If GMOs are safe, why are they banned?"
That's no slippery slope, it's bad logic.
It's bad logic, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Expecting voters to only act in accordance with good logic is a recipe for disappointment. The combination of people's pessimistic and status-quo biases makes me concerned that this could happen.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
