|
axeil posted:We also took the wolf and made it into a new species with slavish devotion to us. We've controlled this stuff for centuries. All we're doing now is making it more efficient. And that speed can lead to unexpected consequences with second and third order natural effects. As I already mentioned, pesticide-resistance crops have led to pesticide-resistant pests, which then require even more pesticides. If this becomes extreme enough, does that mean that it will be impossible to grow non-resistant crops in the same area? What are the consequences for crops that can't be modified in this way? The use of recombinant DNA in crops is most likely a net good. This doesn't mean that the practice should be immune from regulation and public scrutiny.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Without wanting to continue this derail much further, if 64 other countries in the world are also performing GMO labelling, have they experienced negative effects since they started that process? I seem to recall that GMO food is rare in Europe (which requires labeling).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:From Bernie Sander's site Nope. ...I just want to make sure. Is Trump's hair fake?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:From Bernie Sander's site Well Huff Post Nature said... 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The use of recombinant DNA in crops is most likely a net good. This doesn't mean that the practice should be immune from regulation and public scrutiny. This is moving the goalposts, no one is arguing against this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Hasn't it also lead to farmers getting sued by Monsanto for violating their intellectual property because bees are cross-pollinating between their proprietary genetic code and regular, pedestrian crops? Or was that a hoax?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Hasn't it also lead to farmers getting sued by Monsanto for violating their intellectual property because bees are cross-pollinating between their proprietary genetic code and regular, pedestrian crops? Or was that a hoax? I thought it was something about the farmers breeding out the genes that made the seeds sterile and then using those seeds, violating their license agreement. AreWeDrunkYet posted:And that speed can lead to unexpected consequences with second and third order natural effects. As I already mentioned, pesticide-resistance crops have led to pesticide-resistant pests, which then require even more pesticides. If this becomes extreme enough, does that mean that it will be impossible to grow non-resistant crops in the same area? What are the consequences for crops that can't be modified in this way? Regulation and public scrutiny aren't the same thing. Don't conflate sticking a label on someone's Pop-Tarts and someone overseeing genetic changes to make sure they aren't going to screw with the environment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:That article makes it sound like many of the other first world countries are labeling these foods, and it has not yet led to the collapse of the technique yet. The potential dangers of GMOs are well understood and have nothing to do with their consumption. I could just as easily say "is it completely impossible that there are ramifications to vaccines? Why shouldn't every parent be informed of the potential for autism caused by them?" And the answer is because that's dumb and will cause hardship for no benefit just to cater to the paranoia of people who fell for pseudoscientific BS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
echronorian posted:'Selective breeding' is genetic modification with far less control factors. Being pro selective breeding and anti genetic engineering is absolutely silly. The ability for genetic engineering to bypass many generations of selective breeding, not to mention the ability to combine genetic material that wouldn't even be accessible from selective breeding, means that the rest of the ecosystem those crops are in has less of an opportunity to adapt - this can have unintended consequences. It's not necessarily bad, but it's foolish to proclaim the effects of recombinant DNA to be the same as selective breeding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:From Bernie Sander's site He's misinformed, plain and simple. Even right now theres a claim flying across fb that the WHO organization has said GMO causes cancer- what actually happened was a committee in the UN lead by a guy who sells his own line of grounding shoes (you know, to lower your stress by having you in tune with the natural world or some poo poo) spent a lot of money on a non peer reviewed study where they pumped mice full of toxic amounts of glyphosate. Oh and what do you know? GLYPHOSATE LINKED TO CANCER YOU GUYS
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Hasn't it also lead to farmers getting sued by Monsanto for violating their intellectual property because bees are cross-pollinating between their proprietary genetic code and regular, pedestrian crops? Or was that a hoax? I think the case that made the news so much was a farmer that was keeping seed to plant next year instead of buying a whole new batch from Monsanto, which violated the agreement. Pretty sure he ended up getting owned by the Monsanto lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:As far as the irradiated fruit thing goes, it seems reasonable to be cautious when in the past we have sold things like the Radithor without fully understanding the consequences. Is it completely impossible that there are ramifications we are not yet privy to? This comparison is ridiculous. Ignite Memories posted:Hasn't it also lead to farmers getting sued by Monsanto for violating their intellectual property because bees are cross-pollinating between their proprietary genetic code and regular, pedestrian crops? Or was that a hoax? Maybe you should find an actual source on this instead of trying to plant seeds of doubt? There's a case in Canada of a guy discovering Roundup Ready crops on his property, which he intentionally isolated and used to sow his entire field with the following season. He lost his case but had to pay no damages. It wasn't the "seeds blowing in the wind" nightmare scenario it was made out to be. I'm not aware of any case like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Hasn't it also lead to farmers getting sued by Monsanto for violating their intellectual property because bees are cross-pollinating between their proprietary genetic code and regular, pedestrian crops? Or was that a hoax? This is also not true. The case everyone refers to is a Canadian farmer who admitted in court he'd been planting patented seeds without permission. His crops were 90% gm, that simply isn't possible in cross pollination. Hell, even 40% would have been suspect. The other part that gets left out is he's the one who filed the suit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
echronorian posted:This is also not true. The case everyone refers to is a Canadian farmer who admitted in court he'd been planting patented seeds without permission. His crops were 90% gm, that simply is I'll possible in cross pollination. Hell, even 40% would have been suspect. Yeah that one's basically the McDonald's hot coffee case of 'Monsanto bad'
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
echronorian posted:He's misinformed, plain and simple. Even right now theres a claim flying across fb that the WHO organization has said GMO causes cancer- what actually happened was a committee in the UN lead by a guy who sells his own line of grounding shoes (you know, to lower your stress by having you in tune with the natural world or some poo poo) spent a lot of money on a non peer reviewed study where they pumped mice full of toxic amounts of glyphosate. Oh and what do you know? GLYPHOSATE LINKED TO CANCER YOU GUYS Oh no, I should stop drinking shots of straight glyphosate as though it were whiskey. Why hasn't science warned us. How long have they known.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
BattleCattle posted:Nope. Nope, it's actually an absurdly elaborate combover of his remaining hair. If you google it you'll both find an instructional drawing explaining it and a pic of trump without tbe combover where he looks like the Cryptkeeper. If I was as wealthy as him I would have switched to Bosley or hair plugs years ago, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
It is a lot of fun watching people squirm to defend their perfect candidate's imperfect views.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Yeah that one's basically the McDonald's hot coffee case of 'Monsanto bad' Have you ever actually looked at the hot coffee case? Because you're wrong, no offense. The burn victim was 100% in the right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
How does a farmer manually sequester enough seed to plant several hundred acres when he's harvesting the corn by the ear or whatnot? Specialized equipment he bought on the off chance it'd be cheaper than buying retail seed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Have you ever actually looked at the hot coffee case? Because you're wrong, no offense. The burn victim was 100% in the right. I think the reference was mean to be "another legal case people are often completely wrong about" and not "individual liar versus job creating behemoth"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Chuck Todd doesn't appreciate Trump making a mockery of this very serious presidential nomination raceChuck Todd posted:Well, look, I don't want to see the Republican primary race or any presidential race turn into a three-ring circus and us, you know, sitting there going isn't this great? And look at the shiny metal objects. It's not fair to what is the strongest Republican party presidential field in 36 years. for more of his tears: http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/why-chuck-dodd-shilling-gop-and-bashing
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is a lot of fun watching people squirm to defend their perfect candidate's imperfect views. Yeah well Hillary is better than the republicans I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Maybe you should find an actual source on this instead of trying to plant seeds of doubt? I have no source because it was hearsay, which is why you will note I wrote that in the form of a question. I have since been educated, as a result of me asking a question. Sorry that happened, I guess? Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Have you ever actually looked at the hot coffee case? Because you're wrong, no offense. The burn victim was 100% in the right. That's their point, the popular understanding of the case is divorced from the reality. Anyway, here's a good article on GMO hysteria: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...and_errors.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:It wasn't the "seeds blowing in the wind" nightmare scenario it was made out to be. I'm not aware of any case like this. Bt corn? e: I just mean in the sense of 'third-degree effects' not literal horizontal transfer, although that's a concern as well. The whole idea with the nightmare scenario is that it isn't obvious when it happens, and it is totally un-reversable, meaning that we should tread extremely lightly (one might say conservatively?) in rolling out this sort of technology. pugnax fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The ability for genetic engineering to bypass many generations of selective breeding, not to mention the ability to combine genetic material that wouldn't even be accessible from selective breeding, means that the rest of the ecosystem those crops are in has less of an opportunity to adapt - this can have unintended consequences. It's not necessarily bad, but it's foolish to proclaim the effects of recombinant DNA to be the same as selective breeding. Yeah, I'd be more concerned about ecological damage to the surrounding environment than health risks to people eating the stuff. That's the sort of thing us human beings have been historically awful at.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Have you ever actually looked at the hot coffee case? Because you're wrong, no offense. The burn victim was 100% in the right. What I meant was that it's a case that's commonly misunderstood and used as a way to make a point in arguments Trabisnikof posted:I think the reference was mean to be "another legal case people are often completely wrong about" and not "individual liar versus job creating behemoth" Yeah this
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Have you ever actually looked at the hot coffee case? Because you're wrong, no offense. The burn victim was 100% in the right. Its framed poorly but his point is that the case was used like the coffee one to drum up support against the side in the right
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:I have no source because it was hearsay, which is why you will note I wrote that in the form of a question. I have since been educated, as a result of me asking a question. Sorry that happened, I guess? Sorry it's just that the anti-GMO case is often based on spreading FUD without much in the way of concrete concerns, and that seems to be the road you're taking (especially after you compared food irradiation to crank medical products from the 20s with a bit of the "gee can we be sure this is safe???" shtick).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
How about fish farmed in China? Is it cool that that won't be labeled too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
I don't care whether they're labeled or not, but states should be allowed to require labeling of GMO products if they want. Corporations should do a better job of educating the public as to the realities of GMO in our food if they're so upset about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
On the topic of non-terrible things said during the debate last night, Kasich actually defended accepting Medicaid expansion, said unambiguous things like "I'm glad we're getting the mentally ill the help we need", and was shockingly enough cheered for it. That last part might have been because they were in Ohio, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is a lot of fun watching people squirm to defend their perfect candidate's imperfect views. sanders' stance on GMO is stupid, it's retarded that you can copyright/trademark seeds and medicine, but most important than any of that is this is such an absurdly minor wedge issue that nobody should care. Bern has consistently held and enacted liberal policies, supported the poor, is running without lobbyist bribe money, has pledged to take business bribes out of politics, and has an incredibly long history of standing up for minority rights. All of which will have a far lasting positive effect, far more than electing Hillary "always evolving" Clinton over GMO and nuclear energy. I do hope that it is a minor plank in his term, and that the next president is open to nuclear energy (while still holding Bernie's values).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
I farm cows. All cows are GMO's. The last bovid iteration that was genetically unmodified was the Auroch, which went the way of the dodo in 1627.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Dogs genetics are so elastic, why don't we breed together those dogs that can kind of say "mama" or other stuff until we get talking dogs. Furthermore, we could breed dogs until they are precognitive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Sorry it's just that the anti-GMO case is often based on spreading FUD without much in the way of concrete concerns, and that seems to be the road you're taking (especially after you compared food irradiation to crank medical products from the 20s with a bit of the "gee can we be sure this is safe???" shtick). I'm not trying to argue that GMO's are definitely bad for you. I am a little salty that Monsanto sued my home state over this, because this is the type of thing that I see as quite reasonable to question, which is why I am seeking more information by engaging in discussion about it. I learned several things already from the last few pages, and I appreciate the discourse. I have nothing wrong with eating GMO's or non-organically farmed vegetables myself (hell, feed me anything, I got an arts degree and I'm hungry as poo poo), but I don't think it is unreasonable for vermonters (typically a very crunchy populace) to want to know more about what they're feeding their children. I can understand where the fear comes from when I look at radium water and that kind of poo poo. pugnax posted:The whole idea with the nightmare scenario is that it isn't obvious when it happens, and it is totally un-reversable, meaning that we should tread extremely lightly (one might say conservatively?) in rolling out this sort of technology. That's the other thing. Once this stuff is out there, it's not going to be easy to take those genes back. Y'know? If vaccines somehow turned out to give your kids autism, it wouldn't make their kids and their kids' kids also have autism. Altering genetics is less reversible if we were to suddenly discover it had negative effects. Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Found this when researching GMOs. Seems to me and incredibly thorough and balanced investigation into the GMO debate. http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Donald Trump is definitely a goon http://www.hotfeed.me/#!Donald-Trump-Comes-Out-as-Gay-During-86-Debate/cjds/55c436500cf26ee10880ee63
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Boy this thread sure became about Cheddar Bunnies fast
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
greatn posted:Dogs genetics are so elastic, why don't we breed together those dogs that can kind of say "mama" or other stuff until we get talking dogs. Because those traits are controlled by far too many gene sequences that are independent of eachother. You cannot reliably select for all of them from generation to generation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:59
|
|