Oh, wait - are you a young-earth creationist too?
Okay you are now on ignore list. I dont have time for redicule.
Oh, wait - are you a young-earth creationist too?
Do you not believe that land animals became cetaceans?It would not become whale. Your logic have gap which you fullfill with some magic process.
Well actually, there's quite a bit of stuff in your computer that is known for sure to cause cancer, not to mention (if it is a laptop) the battery that may explode and burn you to death at any second. Quick, turn it off before its too late!!Drawing paralel with computer and DDT isnt same. Also we assume that computers are not bad for human health...
...you suspect -- based on nothing but the fact that it is new, even though you know of no actual "bad" about it....while for GMO we suspect that are bad for us and enivronment.
Yes. Did you know that environmentalism is why the US still gets most of its electricity from coal, which kills more people in the US every year than every nuclear power accident, ever, killed altogether?I see atomic power as negative. Did you hear for Fukushima?
I'm hoping for perpetual motion. It's about as likely as most of those...Im for geothermal energy, wave energy, solar energy, wind energy and perhaps Thorium nuclear energy. In future I hope that we will cathc "sun in the box."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
Nonsense: ridicule is a significant fraction of what you are about. Almost every post of yours involves ridicule, including the strawman you set up for ridicule of billvon.Okay you are now on ignore list. I dont have time for redicule.
billvon, you're not seeing what he's doing: he set up a very specific scenario as a diversion, knowing that the random process of evolution won't produce that exact scenario (whales evolving from polar bears). This is diverting from the general issue you were trying to discuss (random changes can produce major changes over enough time)....which he started by putting in quotes that which you did not say.I do believe. But I dont believe that whales evolved from polar bears.
I'm hoping for perpetual motion. It's about as likely as most of those..
I made no claim of "commercial" anything among ancestors.billvon said:No. I was answering your claim that our ancestors used commercial fertilizer and irrigation.
It does not. You can make a case for defining agriculture as the use of irrigation and/or fertilizer.billion said:In fact, the vast majority did not, since agriculture greatly predates irrigation and fertilizer.
I bet you can't. Try it.billvon said:However, if you cherry pick your dates, you can find a time where there was irrigation but no fertilizer, irrigation and fertilizer but no selective breeding or hybridization,
No comparisons that fail to include the contributions of all that stuff are valid. The attempt to credit GMOs with all that benefit is deception. And all those factors produce reductions in the cost of crop production, not the cost of food.billvon said:However, MOST modern seeds, machinery, marketing methods and GMO's help reduce the cost of food.
No more do I consider the nicotinoids in tobacco plants to be insecticides "used" by people. But engineered nicotinoids sprayed over entire landscapes full of honeybees are, and if anyone engineers corn, wheat, and soybeans to express lethal versions of such insecticides throughout entire landscapes that would also qualify. And of course if the insecticide is derived from isolated bacterial exudates or some other phylogenetically alien source, and the genome of the plant engineered to produce a variant of it, the situation is obvious. We can get bacteria to make gasoline these days, probably DDT.billvon said:Hmm. Douglas firs secrete a natural insecticide to repel boring beetles. Do you consider natural forests of Douglas firs to be examples of massive insecticide use? I don't, since the plant itself generates the insecticide.
Now you're deleting from my posts and making claims about what you deleted?russ said:So your only defense of your lie is non sequitur? Makes sense -- your lie is indefensible and obvious,
I have found that when people start trying to redefine words to make their point, the discussion will no longer be fruitful. Have a good day.It does not. You can make a case for defining agriculture as the use of irrigation and/or fertilizer.
They did not, nor has anyone claimed that.I do believe. But I dont believe that whales evolved from polar bears.
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.
Right. And it saved millions from malaria. So we have a substance that has done good and bad - and we now have replacements for it that are even better, and that have almost completely replaced it. A good outcome IMO. From Wikipedia:To argue about DDT is purely insane idea. Its genotoxic et cetera.
Now what? Somebody was attempting to redefine a word? Where?billvon said:It does not. You can make a case for defining agriculture as the use of irrigation and/or fertilizer.
I have found that when people start trying to redefine words to make their point, the discussion will no longer be fruitful. Have a good day
We haven't, actually, found a "good replacement" for DDT. The indiscriminate overuse of that very valuable compound all but destroyed it, and the various replacements for its various roles all have significant drawbacks we wish we did not have to deal with.billvon said:Right. And it saved millions from malaria. So we have a substance that has done good and bad - and we now have replacements for it that are even better, and that have almost completely replaced it.
That leads me to ask whether the FDA ought to be relegated this task, or whether it falls under the bailiwick of other agencies as well, such as the USDA, NIH, EPA, etc.The FDA does no general research capable of discovering or detecting most harms - it requires the marketing corporation to run brief tests for known possibilities of direct short term toxicity and a couple of known allergic reactions, and takes their word for their results. The kinds of problems caused by trans fats, say, would not be detectable in this manner. As no long term consumption studies in a mammal have ever been done for any GMO, and epidemiological studies are made difficult by the lack of labeling, ubiquity of exposure, and the existence of a black market in GMOs (control groups and exposure regimes are difficult to establish), any harms will be a long time in revealing themselves.
I think this explains the likely kind of fear that folks associate with "mutant" foodstuffs. My first reaction was that the odds of this happening would be nil, since, (a) the probability of producing a specific gene this way are nil, (b) the odds of it surviving the enzymes in the saliva, and then somehow entering (the bloodstream?) and then somehow finding a particular parasitic host cell, and then invading it like a virus, are nil (to the 4th power) , and (c) if such a scenario were feasible, then everything we ate / touched / inhaled would be cross-pollinating our DNA, causing rapid and universal mutations of every kind. I looked for any studies and found that my instincts weren't too far off:There are some issues with the DNA used in some GMOs, when incorporated into foodstuffs. The antibiotic generating markers used in the engineering process, for example, do sometimes make their way into the mouth, esophagus, stomach, and small intestine, where they are made available to the bacteria living there - a very complex flora we are just beginning to investigate, and one in which DNA exchange and abduction from the medium is very common.
It's a formidable issue. The question I have is whether GM meat and dairy animals can be bred which carry programmed immunities to pathogens such that this practice may someday be eliminated.Holding this in mind, consider that most Western diets include at least occasional low doses of antibiotics from industrial meat and dairy husbandry, as well as bacteria that have colonized plants and so forth.
I think the evidence supports it to some extent.Add to that the common oral abuse of antibiotics in many countries, including some now converting much of the agriculture to GMOs of various kinds, and what does your good common sense tell you should be investigated before giving a particular foodstuff GMO the Good Housekeeping seal of approval?
Well, it's not.
It's hard for me to imagine that any such stone is left unturned. I am finding some evidence of research which suggests I might be right. Here is one study which had 37 collaborators, which seems pretty intense:So would I. Studies capable of detecting the kinds of harm obviously possible - just the stuff we know about, not even counting the new hazards inevitable in such a new and poorly understood field of engineering - are not being done, in general.
This is visible: Look at the emergency research into potential GMO effects launched in the wake of the mass bee deaths of recent years, for example: that was pretty basic stuff, most of it - but it wasn't just sitting there in the literature for reference,
as a sane person would expect.
I see this as better explained in terms of the strategy for GM soybeans, which began initially as a way of immunizing against Roundup and then, when that succeeded, by giving GM soybeans an additional protein (Bt, named for a bacterium from which the gene is derived) known to repel or kill destructive pests. I can't tell you definitively whether bee studies for the Bt protein began before or after deployment of the GM Roundup Ready Soybean, but it looks like the bee impact studies were probably already reporting favorable to its use by the time the Bt protein version of GM soybeans was deployed. My gut level reaction is that someone was actually awake at the wheel when this transpired. Here's quite a litany of studies at least attesting to the level of concern over the poor bees (Apis mellifera ):The US soybean crop was 80% GMO before anyone had checked out that particular GMO for its effects on bees, the US landscape was almost completely exposed to Bt engineered corn with only very short term and limited investigation into direct bee toxicity performed - the word you're looking for is "imbecile".
I can't decide if it was luck or not. I believe there is a history here which included substantial concern for bees as expressed in the above studies. As long as the GM crops were not deployed until after there was some evidence that the Bt protein is safe, I would not fault the chemical industry -- at least not the ethics of their scientists.So maybe - jury is still out, but the focus is narrowing to neonicotinoids - those two particular GMOs don't harm bees directly (the indirect harms, via landscape modification, are another story), but if so we were just lucky, not competent.
There is no safety in ignorance, dumb luck, and the conscientious safeguarding of the public welfare by enormously profiting business interests with hundreds of millions in investment at stake.
Not since Bunsen Burners usually run on natural gas! But here I would want to split hairs with you, only to remind you that the chemical reactions of cooking food (and regardless of whether it's over wood, kerosene, gas -- all organic -- or whether nuked, roasted in lava or baked in the Sun) are well described in organic chemistry. More to the point, keep in mind that the process of digestion is largely governed by organic chemistry.Which brings us to this, which is flagrant Organic chemistry is not the same as cooking food over a campfire.
Quite an expensive and highly risky -- but hugely successful, and, probably largely contained (as far as new sites) for obvious reasons.Nuclear power is not just another way of boiling water like all the other ways of boiling water.
I see this differently. First, the human gut is extremely versatile. We can (on average) subsist on just about any kind of nutrient. Our ancestors are believed to have lived on a diet of termites. People left to starve have been known to survive by eating clay or weeds. So I agree with you in part that the versatility of the human gut is the product of evolution. But the foods we eat (civilized people) is largely the product of ancient GMO, just known under the more innocuous banner of "artificial selection"..The bypassing of all the built in safeguards of mutation, hybridization, and reproduction that have protected us all this time - including those of sheer incapability - makes a fundamental difference. That's why the stuff was invented - it can do stuff that's completely impossible otherwise, and like nothing ever seen before,
That's hard to compare. Nukes are not unsafe on account of using radioactive fuel, they are unsafe because, although the risk of parallel failures is extremely low, those failures are the kind capable of dumping copious radiation into the environment. Actually the word "safety" gets confused here. There are two parameters involved - the mean time between failure (MTBF) which drives the cost of parallel subsystems needed for emergency backup, and Cost, which is a technical term referring to the potential severity of an accident when the backups were inadequate. Divide Cost by MTBF (roughly speaking) and you get Risk, a number that more closely measures safety.This is brand new, and extraordinarily powerful, and just beginning to be barely understood. The researchers are in a position comparable to that of the first nuke engineers - the ones that used chunks of plutonium as doorstops, and tried to get permission to blow an oil harbor into the Alaskan coastline using hydrogen bombs. Except what they are making can reproduce itself, and live without them, in a system of reactions and influences that makes nuclear engineering look like playing tic tac toe.
But fragments of DNA from the food we eat are not viral. If they were, natural foods would cause severe illnesses like cancer and leukemia and, presumably, bizarre mutations across the entire population,Viral DNA/RNA, inserted into host genomes, often causes cancer. Some types of cancer - cervical cancer, say - have no other major cause. This hints, btw, at the range of side effects that inserting DNA like that can trigger. Prediction is in practical fact impossible - only careful research into each and every different GMO over long stretches of time and in a wide variety of circumstances can begin to get a handle on this stuff.
Pine sap is an insecticide. So is cedar, cinnamon, peppermint, the high octane stuff in a jalapeno, and just about anything we consider flavorful or zesty. Those compounds are there to deter pests. The only question that remains is whether the insecticide transgenetically engineered into the GM crop compares with the one made from petroleum etc insofar as human toxicity is concerned, or whether it compares with the insecticide in a jalapeno or the one in cedar chests which keeps moths from eating wool. As far as I can tell, the GM chemicals are as close to nature as conceivable. This would be an excellent point to pursue. I just haven't researched it.The way they have, in reality, made plants "immune to certain harmful insects" was by having each and every plant in a field manufacture insecticide within its tissues. This is not a replacement for "dumping tons of insecticide", but a means for doing that cheaply.
I agree with you that devising a cotton plant which kills the boll weevil deprives that pest of food. Does it mean the boll weevil will evolve into a new form, potentially more harmful or resistant? I doubt it. I think they will either vanish or adapt to eating some other form of cellulose. This is another good question. Without the research to be sure, my guess is that the track record of insecticide use is one of decimation of species, not mutation and selection leading to evolution.It is a particularly bad means, in that it sets up nearly ideal circumstances for the evolution of resistance in the target pests - the bane of insecticides generally, and something that is prevented in responsible agricultural practice by limiting and timing application. Also, in practice, as the comparatively benign insecticide that is the common GMO is rendered increasingly useless (for everyone) by such ill conceived overuse, much more toxic insecticides must be employed in fields starved of natural predators and infrastructurally dependent on this mode of pest management.
You mean they harbor Roundup? I haven't found evidence for that but I will look into it. That would be a case for discontinuing Roundup, which I believe may come to pass anyway. Another thought that comes to mind is to deliver a genetic alteration to the weeds which renders them sterile, or perhaps genetically engineer pests that target the weeds. I think I have seen some news about this somewhere.Partly because of the large increase in application rate, and that directly on the plants, and partly because of the mechanism of resistance engineered into them, Roundup Ready crops do tend to harbor the chemical - including in the seeds and leaves and flowers that people or their animals eat.
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.
I encourage you to start reading scientific reports about the safety of GMOs. I think it will surprise you to discover that all is not as it seems.
We can actually turn to scientific research to answer the questions you raised in the OP.
Perhaps bee dying because of ingestion of GMO proteins.(?)
Until somebody is doing it, converting essentially all of the agricultural product of the breadbasket of the world to a small set of these unexamined and unmonitored GMOs is folly. You can make a long list of possibly relevant agencies and entities that are not vetting these things or investigating even the obvious downside potentials - nobody is. We're feeling lucky, apparently.aqueous said:That leads me to ask whether the FDA ought to be relegated this task, or whether it falls under the bailiwick of other agencies as well, such as the USDA, NIH, EPA, etc
There is no safety in ignorance.aqueous said:In the case of GMOs it would be hard for me to measure safety without better understanding the failure syndromes. At this point I haven't found any examples of toxicity that would lead me to consider the odds that GM foods are unsafe for me to eat.
All that stuff has been vetted by thousands of years of human experience. We don't eat naturally harmful plant insecticides and pesticides, because what we haven't evolved to abhor we have learned from experience not to ingest - or to handle, as Andes potato eaters and Polynesian manioc eaters show us. In the absence of such knowledge, one "natural" potato can kill a small child. In the absence of experience - such as Russians moving to North America and eating familiar looking mushrooms just like the ones they so enjoyed in their home country - we get into trouble. You would not want the chemicals a cedar tree uses to repel insects to be engineered into your cotton underwear, without checking for long term side effects (such as the scrotal cancer that used to afflict chimney sweeps from soot exposure). There is no safety in ignorance.saqueous said:But here I would want to split hairs with you, only to remind you that the chemical reactions of cooking food (and regardless of whether it's over wood, kerosene, gas -- all organic -- or whether nuked, roasted in lava or baked in the Sun) are well described in organic chemistry. More to the point, keep in mind that the process of digestion is largely governed by organic chemistry.
- - -
Pine sap is an insecticide. So is cedar, cinnamon, peppermint, the high octane stuff in a jalapeno, and just about anything we consider flavorful or zesty. Those compounds are there to deter pests. The only question that remains is whether the insecticide transgenetically engineered into the GM crop compares with the one made from petroleum etc insofar as human toxicity is concerned, or whether it compares with the insecticide in a jalapeno or the one in cedar chests which keeps moths from eating wool. As far as I can tell, the GM chemicals are as close to nature as conceivable.
The standard, common, predictable effect of overuse and heedless broadcast use of any antibiotic - insecticides and pesticides considered as subsets of antibiotics in general - is rapid evolution of resistance in the target pest (boll weevils, Staphylococcus bacteria, quack grass, whatever) in an environment newly purged of their competitors and predators and diseases and other curbs on their fecundity. Most of the malaria carrying mosquitos on the planet evolved resistance to DDT, for example, and their populations rebounded into an environment freed of competition and predation by the poison. That was largely a consequence of agricultural use in their landscape, btw, - agribusiness has a miserable track record of irresponsibility and short term profiteering in this arena. We lost the enormous benefits of DDT to the short term profiteering of plantation agriculture.aqueous said:Without the research to be sure, my guess is that the track record of insecticide use is one of decimation of species, not mutation and selection leading to evolution.
They are often available to the bacteria in your gut, for swap and incorporation. In that light, we note that the antibiotic resistance marker code used in some - not all - GMOs derived from a bacterium in the first place, and is well suited for incorporation into a bacterial genome (it even comes with the appropriate insertion and swap code, sometimes - left over from the engineering.) And so forth.aqueous said:But fragments of DNA from the food we eat are not viral.
Plants only harbor glyphosate if it's been sprayed on them, and they have been engineered to sequester or otherwise tolerate it. Glyphosate is one of the most useful and benign herbicides we have. It does not persist in the environment, or bioaccumulate, or poison people in trace amounts they encounter from overspray and accident, or cost a fortune and require special gear and training to handle safely. That it is being destroyed by Monsanto for corporate profit is a near tragedy.aqueous said:You mean they harbor Roundup? I haven't found evidence for that but I will look into it. That would be a case for discontinuing Roundup, which I believe may come to pass anyway
That study is among the best we have, and it illustrates my point in considerable detail. Here's a quote from the abstract, which I think is taken fairly and in enough context to represent the problems:aqeous said:It's hard for me to imagine that any such stone is left unturned. I am finding some evidence of research which suggests I might be right. Here is one study which had 37 collaborators, which seems pretty intense:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18328408
That is just baffling, OK? These are professional scientists, sincerely concerned, and they:Many feeding trials have been reported in which GM foods like maize, potatoes, rice, soybeans and tomatoes have been fed to rats or mice for prolonged periods, and parameters such as body weight, feed consumption, blood chemistry, organ weights, histopathology etc have been measured. The food and feed under investigation were derived from GM plants with improved agronomic characteristics like herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance. The majority of these experiments did not indicate clinical effects or histopathological abnormalities in organs or tissues of exposed animals
Read that carefully. They are looking for chemical toxicity - direct poisoning severe enough and specifically predictable enough to show up in the limited aspects of rat health that they check, within 90 days. They won't catch anything else, reliably. Birth defects and cross generational effects? Brain damage that does not affect weight? Immune system problems? Invisible. And that is, in the view of the people we are depending on for our safety, more than adequate. They say so.Laboratory animal feeding studies of 90-days duration appear to be sufficient to pick up adverse effects of diverse compounds that would also give adverse effects after chronic exposure. This conclusion is based on literature data from studies investigating whether toxicological effects are adequately identified in 3-month subchronic studies in rodents, by comparing findings at 3 and 24 months for a range of different chemicals.
It's the obliviousness, not the ethics, that most obviously concerns.aqueous said:I can't decide if it was luck or not. I believe there is a history here which included substantial concern for bees as expressed in the above studies. As long as the GM crops were not deployed until after there was some evidence that the Bt protein is safe, I would not fault the chemical industry -- at least not the ethics of their scientists.