Truth about GMO

Locust said:
billvon you remind me on Darwin statement which even now every student of biology is laughing. "In given time polar bear can become whale."
Click to expand...
?? Uh - that statement is correct. It would just take a long time.
Please, you dont need to bother to sell me your propaganda how is doable. For sure I know its not. We always breed corn and corn as I said. Not corn and soil bacteria.
Click to expand...
It has been happening for millennia.
====================
Visual Evidence of Horizontal Gene Transfer between Plants and Bacteria in the Phytosphere of Transplastomic Tobacco
Appl Environ Microbiol. May 2009

Alessandra Pontiroli
Abstract

Plant surfaces, colonized by numerous and diverse bacterial species, are often considered hot spots for horizontal gene transfer (HGT) between plants and bacteria. Plant DNA released during the degradation of plant tissues can persist and remain biologically active for significant periods of time, suggesting that soil or plant-associated bacteria could be in direct contact with plant DNA. In addition, nutrients released during the decaying process may provide a copiotrophic environment conducive for opportunistic microbial growth. . . .Microcosm-based experiments revealed that bacterial growth and competence development occur in different compartments of the plant. Isolation and direct visualization of transformants in situ suggest that some compartments of the phytosphere can be regarded as environmental hot spots for HGT.
====================
and we didnt use it for 100 years. Point of my link is tha genetic engineering process isnt so precise.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Random mutation (i.e. what we've used for centuries) and selective breeding is even less precise.
 
Study from 2012 found that rats fed Monsanto’s patented NK603 gmo corn were more likely to develop tumours and suffer severe liver and kidney damage. The study followed 200 rats over two years, divided into 10 groups of 10 males and 10 females. Three groups were fed the NK603 corn alone, three groups were fed the corn treated with Roundup herbicide, three groups were not fed the corn but their water was treated with Roundup, and a control group was fed non-GM corn and plain drinking water. The researchers found that the rats that consumed the GM corn or the Roundup, separately or combined, were prone to serious health problems that typically did not manifest until the fourth month of the trial.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
 
Locust said:
Study from 2012 found that rats fed Monsanto’s patented NK603 gmo corn were more likely to develop tumours and suffer severe liver and kidney damage. The study followed 200 rats over two years, divided into 10 groups of 10 males and 10 females. Three groups were fed the NK603 corn alone, three groups were fed the corn treated with Roundup herbicide, three groups were not fed the corn but their water was treated with Roundup, and a control group was fed non-GM corn and plain drinking water. The researchers found that the rats that consumed the GM corn or the Roundup, separately or combined, were prone to serious health problems that typically did not manifest until the fourth month of the trial.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
Click to expand...
You really should check what you're linking to.
That study has been retracted.
Why?
Let's look at the Retraction Notice:
The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,”
no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence
Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague–Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.

 
scheherazade said:
.
Click to expand...

Zucker kommt zuletzt. If they wont label it we can.
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
icon_verified.jpg
 
Locust said:
Awww. Thats sweet. Poor Monsanto. Small sample size. Found me ANY recent peer reviewed paper and I can insert a doubt in their findings.
Click to expand...
But what you can't do is actually retract it. You're trying to sell spoiled food!
 
No. I believe polar bear can not become whale. In any given time. Darwin was wrong there. Which is normal considering that Lamarck was wrong before him and that science is self correcting.
 
GMO is young technology. We go with "what could possibly go wrong?" We have many ideas in history which are now bad idea. Such as DDT, Agent Orange, fleecing, blood letting and atomic power.
Lets say that after 50 years we have consensus that GMO was bad idea. Problem is that they have put it out there and it will not go away. Contamination was already done.
 
Locust said:
GMO is young technology. We go with "what could possibly go wrong?" We have many ideas in history which are now bad idea. Such as DDT, Agent Orange, fleecing, blood letting and atomic power.
Lets say that after 50 years we have consensus that GMO was bad idea. Problem is that they have put it out there and it will not go away. Contamination was already done.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that you understand that as of today GMOs are unquestionably beneficial and your only real basis for opposing them is the possibility that they may be discovered 50 years from now to be bad? (Well -- that and your anti-corporate politics, of course).
 
Locust said:
No. I believe polar bear can not become whale. In any given time.
Click to expand...
Of course it could; given enough time, and enough selective pressure, polar bears would lose their terrestrial adaptations (legs, fur, forward facing nostrils etc) and become adapted to a purely aquatic environment, like cetaceans did.

Indeed, that's close to what happened. A land based animal (Indohyus) evolved into modern whales. It took about 50 million years.
 
Russ_Watters said:
So what you are saying is that you understand that as of today GMOs are unquestionably beneficial and your only real basis for opposing them is the possibility that they may be discovered 50 years from now to be bad? (Well -- that and your anti-corporate politics, of course).
Click to expand...

No I want to draw paralel with DDT, Agent Orange, atomic power. Also to rise awareness of common people who doubt that GMO is bad (I dont doubt) what would happend if we found out in 50 years that is bad. I hope you have imagination and knowledge to realize what would happened.
 
Locust said:
GMO is young technology. We go with "what could possibly go wrong?" We have many ideas in history which are now bad idea. Such as DDT, Agent Orange, fleecing, blood letting and atomic power.
Click to expand...
If we didn't have DDT millions more people would have died from malaria. Now we have better insecticides, fortunately.
If we didn't have nuclear power we would now have put billions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and released millions more tons of nuclear waste into our water and air. Fortunately we had nuclear power so that didn't happen.

So both of those are bad examples. If GMO's are "only" as successful as DDT and nuclear power, they will be quite successful in the long run.
 
iceaura said:
If I recall correctly...

[non sequitur deleted]

In valid comparisons, it reduces cost per unit yield in the short run, and that's its advantage. That is a considerable advantage....
Click to expand...
So your only defense of your lie is non sequitur? Makes sense -- your lie is indefensible and obvious, so unless you want to retract it, there is nothing more you can say about it except to agree with the truth, while still trying to wiggle-out of it.
 
Locust said:
No I want to draw paralel with DDT, Agent Orange, atomic power. Also to rise awareness of common people who doubt that GMO is bad (I dont doubt) what would happend if we found out in 50 years that is bad. I hope you have imagination and knowledge to realize what would happened.
Click to expand...
Setting aside that atomic power doesn't belong in the "negative" category at all, what you are saying could be used as an argument against any new technology. If you want to go down that road, you need to stop using your computer this instant because you can't be sure it isn't giving you cancer right now!
 
billvon said:
Of course it could; given enough time, and enough selective pressure, polar bears would lose their terrestrial adaptations (legs, fur, forward facing nostrils etc) and become adapted to a purely aquatic environment, like cetaceans did.

Indeed, that's close to what happened. A land based animal (Indohyus) evolved into modern whales. It took about 50 million years.
Click to expand...

It would not become whale. Your logic have gap which you fullfill with some magic process.
 
Russ_Watters said:
Setting aside that atomic power doesn't belong in the "negative" category at all, what you are saying could be used as an argument against any new technology. If you want to go down that road, you need to stop using your computer this instant because you can't be sure it isn't giving you cancer right now!
Click to expand...

Drawing paralel with computer and DDT isnt same. Also we assume that computers are not bad for human health while for GMO we suspect that are bad for us and enivronment.
I see atomic power as negative. Did you hear for Fukushima? Im for geothermal energy, wave energy, solar energy, wind energy and perhaps Thorium nuclear energy and biomass. In future I hope that we will cathch "sun in the box."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top