???

Not in Canada, biased article, etc.

I don't believe that GM plants are poisonous.

do you even know anything about biology?
growing in harsher conditions, is true, enough, but that won't create miracles, during a nasty drought. less water, doesn't mean....no water.

besides.
have you ever seen wild wheat?
corn?

they've been selectively bred for THOUSANDS of years.
when the first hunter gatherers went out, and gathered seeeds, so that they could plant those plants closer to home, in their own gardens...they selected the nicest ones.
they gathered the subsequent seeds of...the nicest ones.

thus propogating them.
GE in a large sense, is doing the same thing. filtering out bad genes, adding better ones.

if you can support those claims of GE being poisonous, not resistant to drout, or not producing substantially more than regular I'll consider them.

but what you accuse does not sound fair, to me.

Indian farmers:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro.....h_suicide.html

You'll have to sift through a whole lot of articles if you want the full details. But a main contributor to the failure of the crops was the fact that the GM cotton required double the water required by the native varieties in order to grow. The weak monsoons thus caused the GM cotton plants to die.

Poisonous GM Foods:
http://www.stwr.org/food-security-a.....ubergines.html

GM is nothing like selective breeding. Forget about that whole feel good concept.

You'll need to look in detail at the materials regarding GM fertilizers to get a clear picture of their yields. There's a lot of PR stuff floating around the net.

I admit that I don't know as much as I should about the facts of GM food, but that brinjal article you linked is terribly written. It's an obvious scare pamphlet, rife with fallacies: conflating correlation with causation; assuming that animals have special senses that humans lack; conflating naturalness and healthiness...

And not once does the writer ever mentioned what exactly the effect of the Bt toxin on humans is, or where in the plant the toxin will be present. Nor does he ever state the basis of his claim that the introduction of Bt brinjal will make him less able to cope with his diabetes.

And I just love this quote: "These are not the only products that received the safety certificate - the list is endless." I certainly hope so, or else how the hell are we eating anything?

The problem ain't the plants by themselves, but the pesticids Monsanto oblige them to use: Roundup. It lets many toxic remnants in the soil, and as it's a systemic one, there are remnants in the plants themselves.

Also, manipulated genes tend to spread in the wild, e.g. from colza.

Diodraco is wrong, GE means Genetic Engineering. GE means you have gone into the plants DNA and altered it in some form, such as adding frog genes to strawberries to make them more water resistant.

Picking out the best of something is called SELECTIVE BREEDING. However you are not going in and changing the genetic makeup of the plant itself.

I am avadly against GE crops here in the USA and world. Europe banned them for a reason, here in the USA the only testing has been short sighted and done by the groups who want to propogate them and since when do criminals investigate themselves?

MifMaf if you are concerned with GE crops I would like for you to look up "the future of foods" which is a DVD on GE crops and such. There are others out there if you are interested in knowing them and if I dig around my piles I can find you the names of them.

GE will be the downfall of the world environmentally, not pollution.

Let me enlighten you all quickly: GE and GM are the same, GM is Genetically MODIFIED and GE is Genetically Engineered, both are the same however people use them interchangably since both deal with changing the plants DNA.

Not really-... Seriously. GENETICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. I mean, complaining there are some "genes from something else in something else" shows you know jack squat about how genes actually work. I mean, hell, we share 95%+ of our DNA with mice. And about 50-60% of our DNA with Bananas. It's less to do with us having skin, and more with basic biology and chemistry. Respiration. Conversion of energy. having a cellular structure and all that.

Yes, in laboratory settings scientists will sometimes do wierd stuff like putting bioluminescent genes in mice to see if they can make them glow- but that was ages ago to find out wether such things worked or not. It won't make a mouse gelatinous and remove it's spine, but you can, say, make a mouse produce bioluminescent chemicals or a tomato produce whatever it is in Milkweed leaves in it's own leaves, so animals won't eat on it. Not that that neccisarily has any bearing on the fruit, which is the part we eat. But protecting just the leaves from pests (such as various caterpillars) and predators goes a long way towards pest control.

All Genetic Engineering is, is applied knowledge OF genetics. It's less of a crapshoot than simple breeding is, because we know a lot more about the how and why of biochemistry.

Then there's the "Big Business is all criminals" argument which, while patently false, I won't be covering in this post. That, and the "GE will destroy the environment", which is also simply not true.

> All Genetic Engineering is, is applied knowledge OF genetics. It's less of a crapshoot than simple breeding is, because we know a lot more about the how and why of biochemistry.

Here here!! It's the same processes we've been doing for thousands of years, only with different techniques. There have ALREADY been problems with crops being wiped out due to low genetic diversity, because of artificial selection working for so long. That's why farmers will usually plant more than one crop a year, so if something wipes out a whole strain, they'll have eggs in other baskets.

> Then there's the "Big Business is all criminals" argument which, while patently false, I won't be covering in this post.

The reason people think like that is because, while Big Business has no more nor less of an inherent occurrence of evildoers than the population at large, people with a great deal of corporate authority and financial resources are in more of a position to inflict their will upon the rest of us. Who can do more damage: a petty burglar with a ski mask and a pistol, or a CEO with the power to ruin the lives of a hundred thousand workers with a single signature? Both act in the same selfish ways, but one, having greater power, does greater damage. With great power comes great responsibility, and unfortunately, many people seem inclined to abuse that power instead.

Your wrong, get the book "Genetic Roulette" which is written by Jeffrey M. Smith and read over it.

As for sharing genese with other plants and animals. Show me where you got that from. We share genes not with mice but with chimps. Also, there is one HELL of a difference between YOU and a MOUSE.

GE and GM is screwing with genetics. I know how it works, thanks to science and genetic experimentation they are able to "attach" different genes to other plants such as frog genes to strawberries. Does this mean the strawberry will become a frog or sproud legs and hop? No. It just goes to show how genes are being manipulated. Also, they are UNABLE to STOP the gene from transfering itself from one plant to another. Once done it is proliferous and CAN NOT be stopped less you burn the whole crop and surrounding area. Since there are "loose" genes in the plant there is a chance they will react with other organisms causing mutation in other plants.

Also last I recall we were closer to FRUIT FLIES than a mouse which should send a shiver down your spine but makes a lot of sense.

I dare you to show me where I said "all big business" in any of my statements. You make assumptions and create falses that do not exist. I never said all, I NAMED one corporation in SPECIFIC as being damnable. You are just trying to create false reasons to give yourself false standing.

You have lost credibility for false accusations.

No, You are the wrong one. And no, since it's 12 AM here, and I don't want to go spend money on what may or may not be propoganda.

Steve Jones's study. He's the Professor of Genetics at University College, London. That's the banana one. As for the mouse one, it's been shown in a few different science journals, such as the imaginatively titled "Science" and "Nature". They originally included that comparison. Numbers apparently vary between 85% and 95%. It was done by Lisa Stubbs of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. We also share DNA with cabbages and fruit flies, yes. But we only share about 45% with cabbages, and 60% with fruit flies. 90%-ish mouse. Yes, We share 98% of our genes with chimps,. but also a LOT with mice. That 5% makes more a difference than you think. Especially since our gene sequences are massively long. Each gene has multiple bits of DNA in them, and it's each individual DNA piece that carries all that information. Order is important, too.

As for your undestanding of genetics.... You really don't if you keep using the "frog genes in a strawberry" thing. A gene strand is just a gene strand- If we looked, wild strawberries probably have the same genes and sequences as a LOT of things. I mean, what are you trying to say with the line "It just goes to show how genes are being manipulated"? That if the people doing this weren't so sneaky, they WOULD get around and hop?

And yeah, but then again, is that a bad thing? I mean, we're unable to even stop our OWN genes from spreading around, short of using contraceptives. The same thing could be said for farm grown crops spreading their genes around. A farmer can't control what genes go where once the plants are, well, planted. Plants that aren't genetically modified can also do wierd stuff with local plants- assuming they could cross-pollinate at all. And that's a pretty big if. As in, no bigger than a non-genetically modified crop would have. The wierd stuff comes from hybridization itself- Like a horse and a donkey crossbreeding. It happens. A lot of times with good results. (Mules! All the good parts of a horse, all the plusses of a donkey, unfortunately almost never able to breed.) Yay hybrid vigor!

And, to quote, you said "here in the USA the only testing has been short sighted and done by the groups who want to propogate them and since when do criminals investigate themselves?". Which seems to pretty clearly refer to big business, government, etc. I mean, who exactly DID you mean? You never mentioned anything in specific, and those are the people doing genetic modifying research.

And, finally and Unfortunately, just because you say something doesn't mean it's true. =P Keep try.

Ok you got lost somewhere along the line so let me make this short:
By adding genes you must create a perverbial "hole" in the gene of parent X for insertion of Z gene. In so doing you are able to intertwine them however you are unable to close the hole. In so doing X is now XZ and thus can spread to other plants this Z gene which is "lucritive."
Let us say bug or person A eats XZ, the genes in XZ being unsecured and also unnatural since the A body will not recognize it could very well have Z gene attempt to attack to A's body gene. In so doing the body fights back destroying it or causing a cancer.

There. The same goes for bugs, what happens when digested yes? We have seen that cancers in the USA have SKYROCKETED compared to the rest of the world and the rest of the world eats very little to NO GM or GE foods.

However your group refuses to look into the matter and instead tries to get poor farmers in India and the Philipines to buy into this "miracle" crop. It is truly a miracle considering what it has wrought for them: death.

Making holes in genes? What kind of machines or magic potions are used to do this?

IBM is on the cutting edge of molecular modification with metals that don't move, twist, and basically live, and that's pretty damn difficult as it is. Given that DNA is made of a very small number of similar molecular chains, you can't just splice them together with current physical or chemical processes, especially on a mass production scale. Identify, yes, but not splice.

Nothing except the same forces that keep genes closed anyway. There is no hole in genetic information when something is placed- It's less "Ripping a hole in the wall and filling it with cement" and more "finding the sequence with the right GTCA sequence we want and playing in more ACGTGACTGCATGCATCGTGGTTGG.". If there wasn't, the one gene you altered would suddenly be multiple genes, and chances are the modified product wouldn't just wither and die, it would probably fail to even be viable in the first place.

In additon, That's not how digestion works, either! The body breaks all DNA sequences down into the same thing- protein- then rearranges it itself. It doesn't matter what the sequence is, (unless the sequence composes the entirety of a virus or bacteria, which somehow becomes it's own organism. Which simply doesn't happen like that.), since any DNA expressed in digestable protein gets digested the same as all the others. A more valid concern would be if the DNA sequence causes the food item to produce a harmful substance- and, hey, check this out, We have a battery of tests that cover such things, and are performed on new crop items! in the end, what I'm trying to say is, your body doesn't really care about that.

In addition, There are a few things wrong with that third paragraph. First off, that's a misleading statistic. Cancer rates have risen because people are living longer and we have a higher population. Did you know that car accidents and the number of alcoholics and divorces have also increase, as well as the number of homicides each year? But the rates are down. People in other countries usually don't live as long, thus cancer rates are lower. They usually die of other things- such as war, famine, disease... While cancer numbers are up, (since the older people get, the more common cancer becomes for them) the overall deaths from cancer are down. The problem isn't so much the number of reported cases, (As that IS increasing) as it is the rate. (IE per cancered person vs uncancered, which is Decreasing.)
Second, you're trying to tie together correlation and causation, which, as stated earlier, is simply wrong. Remember, 80% of violent criminals in the US ate bread the same day they committed a crime. Yet those two things have absolutely NO bearing on eachother at all. It's just bread is a common item in most meals.


However, your group keeps spewing pseudosci

Oops, pushed enter too early there. One sec-

... Basically, aside from properly typing in the Mondo Medicals quote, basically what I'm trying to say is...


...ience and untruths and trying to present it as facts, as well as viciously attacking those who disagree with you, despite actually using the tactics you complain against. Wether this is a mote/beam eye thing, or mere Projection, the point is you're being hypocritical. We can debate, but we can do with less vitriol, mmkay?

And Wait, what folks in India again? How'd we make them die? And how does this stack up against the 1 billion or more lives Norman Borlaug saved with GE crops before being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and the Padma Vibhushan?

Cancer rates have risen and age has nothing to do with it. Look at the younger groups coming down with cancers now.

Quickly the deaths: The GE and GM crops require more care than a regular crop, in India the farmers learned this the hard way with Monsanto GE and GM seeds. They planted the crops and found that they had to spray a million and one chemicals on the plants compared to the native crops they had grown for thousands of years. In so doing the farmers are going bankrupt because of this and commiting suicide.

Saying that Norman got the nobel prize is a JOKE! Adolf Hitler was put up as "man of the year" by TIME magazine which is the leader in magazines here in the USA. Giving someone an award is a joke, anything can be fixed a certain way to make it look the opposite. The guy you cite is causing the world nothing but harm and chaos.

Also I gave a book name to look into which has information on the StarLink corn incident which they hushed quickly which delt with GE corn which caused an outbreak of illness in the USA. I am not going to copy and paste a whole book of over 400+ pages and sources for you.

The fact the body breaks everything down is the PROBLEM, it even uses the altered genes however since they have been tampered with it can cause problems for the body and allergic reactions to it. The body is meant to break down normal, natural foods not geneticaly altered ones which are unrecognizable.

Also your "miracle crops" have less nutrients and proteins than regular crops. Again I am thinking of the woman from India who proved it. However I can only come up with the name of another woman who works with her but it is a start for you: Anuradha Mital.

However I will give you the biggest evidence for the fact that GE and GM is unsafe just as something to think about:
Europe and most of the world is BANNING GE and GM crops and banning imports of such as Australia and New Zealand. Just think about that for a second and realize your side has never done any testing AT ALL on the safety of the crops.

However we both know no amount of "evidence" is going to change the others mind here. Ever.

The national cancer institute does say cancer among children under 15 is up- By 10%. In 2003. (Because all government sensus information I can find is at least five years old. Possibly because taking a sensus of any sort these days takes that long...) To 14.1 in 100,000. This increase is because of new techniques to find cancers, thus leading to earlier prevention, and thus a lower mortality rate.

Are you sure? I'd like a citation on that please. [CITATION NEEDED] Could it be because the soil is crap and there isn't enough water, or some more plausible explanation?

Time Magazine is just that, a Magazine. And this was before we found out about the slaughter- He DID do some good for germany, such as building highways and such. At the time we liked Germany- We even attended the 1936 German Olympics, three years before World War 2. It wasn't until *after* the war that we found out about Gas Chambers. Of course, I think he was the only TIME man of the year who was ever found possessing an entire country and gas chambers, and TIME probably started doing more research on people after that before declaring them man of the year.

The Nobel prize is *far* more respectable than a magazine's "man of the year" award. In addition, you didn't address him winning the Padma Vibhushan for Agricultural in 2006. You asy the man caused the country nothing but sorrow, but he's been there since, oh, 1965 and has won the country's second highest possible award? I think India knows a thing or two about what he's done for India. Over the last 43 years. Apparently, good things!

Yeah- I looked into it. The one written by Jeffery Smith? Isn't he a highschool dropout? One who spouts environmentalist propoganda? He is NOT a credible source, and neither are his books.

It caused allergic reactions in people with certain food allergies, much like actual food even processed in the wrong area might. It's now used solely for animal feed. Not much of a problem, as far as I can see.

Umm, no- Again, this is you not understanding how digestion works. You see, the body can't tell the difference between the two foods because there IS no difference to the body. They're both equally good for you. The body literally breaks down the DNA into the individual A T G C amino acid parts by peptides. Anything bigger and your body literally can't digest it. This is how the body prepares proteins to be reassembled into anything it needs. It doesn't matter what order the DNA was in before- it gets reduced to the basic building blocks all the same.

All crops, even before genetically modified ones, have had reduced nutritional value over the last years because of soil depletion. Crop rotation helps this, but it does not fix it. Fertilizers help, but they usually only provide enough nutrients for one planting. (Thus they have to buy another each year.) - It's unfortunate, but it's pretty much unavoidable.

Which woman? How'd she prove it? [CITATION NEEDED]
Oh yeah, Anuradha Mital. After reading some of her writings on the internet, it's pretty clear she's in the same boat as Jeffery Smith. I don't need someone who worked with the woman you referred to, especially since the name you DID supply isn't credible.

Mmmm.... thought about it, but this means Australia and New Zealand have grown them and thought them safe enough to export. and I *like* Australia. The bans on Genetic foods include things like... A kind of corn that could harm butterflies. And companies having to put if there is Genetically modified food or organic food on their labels. That's... Well, doesn't seem like a "ban of all genetic foods". Perhaps you could link me to an article that's more clear on the subject?
As for "most of the world" part of that statement? [CITATION NEEDED]

I hope you're not implying that everything said against your position is "evidence", as in, not actually evidence. Because if you did, it would be untrue and bad form.

Beautifully written, sir! *Applauds* Nice to know someone else stayed awake during science class!

i dunno, the fact that this article is from a biased party is already suspiscious of the facts on that site, same would go for the companies who have articles that show their GE products in good light.

i'd rather have the media sensationalized, but neutral version of this to form opinions and even that can be rare to non-existant

Your going to have one hellova time finding anything, however Europe banned the crops. So I suggest you start with them if you believe greenpeace is biased. You MAY find something however I have no idea where you would really start on that one since this was YEARS ago.

i'm not taking sides untill there's a death report that links this topic to some poor guy who ate GE beans for supper too many times.

for now i'm sliding this debate into the "trying to prevent something that may not even happen" folder, right beside the "end of world with Hadron Collider" debate topic

Those kinds of reports never appear because by the time that happens it will become "normal" just as cancer, heart disease and diabetes are now "normal".

Don't forget "seemingly untraceable." The probably causes are so 'complex' and 'unknowable' that we won't even bother to try to lay blame on anyone.

probably = probable

Get yourself the book: "Genetic Roulette" which is written by Jeffrey M. Smith and read over it.

It covers one incident with StarLink GE corn that caused severe allergic reactions in thousands of people and was picked up by the news, however only 57 bothered going through the paper nightmare of reporting it to the FDA.

Oh yes.. The Institute for Responsible Technology. Yes, I know of them. Radical group with an agenda founded by Mr. Jeffery M. Smith when his Seeds of Deception book took off in 2003. Yes, Jeffery Smith is very, very accomplished for never having finished High School.

His book and his presentations are very big sellers. There's money in fear propaganda after all. I ask would the great wisdom in his books not be free if it was so important? You may say, that an activist needed funding, but he has received it. It's over 3 years since his book, He now wields plenty of power and money, And rather then become a lobbyist, Rather then submit his astonishing findings to the leading scientific and publicly accessible journals, He writes and sells more books! His presentations? One must pay to see them. Even world leaders, scared witless of technology and already generally untrusting of the western world also pay him to see his findings.

Follow the money they say, and one will find the truth. Yes, I have followed this, I've followed this for a very long time.You see, I'm very passionate about knowledge and the power it has. Advances in genetic engineering has feed and saved the lives of NOT hundreds, NOT thousands, NOT even millions, but tens of millions. Scaring already frightened and I should mention STARVING countries with bogus science is not the way to go.

And you- You should be thankful you can have a debate about food. You should be thankful you can choose to be a naturalist, that you can choose to eat organic tomatoes. And when you can offer a solution to the thousands who die in starvation hourly I will listen, as will all the scientific community. We're eager for people who work tirelessly such as Norman Borlaug, not for any personal gain or any kind of money, but to save lives selflessly.

Ok let me blow your argument out of the water completely:
Europe is banning GE and GM crops.
Austrailia and New Zealand have banned them.
Nations all over the planet are banning US imports of GE and GM grain because of the dangers such as cancer and other contamination problems.

India and Korea now have a SKYROCKETING suicide rate amoung farmers who grow your crops...

You have saved no one but your own ass with money raught from the rotting corpses of farmers across the world. Your crops have destabilized whole nations agriculture systems.

You have not saved tens of millions, you have doomed hundreds of millions.

_{[citation needed]}

The Idea that GM crops are poisonous is fud. The arguement exists and is based on something that COULD happen rather than something that is or does happen. These agritech companies that do hybridize know very well what is safe and what is not (like adding allergen protein producing DNA) and heaven help them if they put the wrong gene in cause the federal governments would be on their rear ends faster than white on rice. The GM labels in europe is nothing but something put in under massive paranoia induced public pressue and fear of the unknown. Its known from other issues as well how quick and sometimes nonsensically reactive the nations in Europe are.

For your pesticide agreement you don't need to actually spray chemicals to make a plant "pest resistant" The plant kingdom has its own home brew chemicals and techniques that work just fine. Tomatoes is one plant that has this "poison" occurring NATURALLY in its inedible stems and leaves as are things like hair's and thorns and even rash causing stingers like the rash inducing nettle. Actually believe it or not most of the chemicals that help the plants fend off such issues actually help us in the same way so finding ways to breed them in should be more safe than troublesome. Those petroleum based pesticides that can be poisonous cannot be produced naturally and likely never will be.


AS for fertilizers they are the best thing we have right now for increasing yields out of hybridization. Dropping fertilizers outright can (and has) cause large famines where agriculture is the primary industry. The world right now is heavily suffering from a lack of food crop biodiversity and some severe nutrient depletion. If they wanna quit relying on Genetic hybridizing than they need to take care of that over the fud they have now.

Safety comming from the same ones who put profit before anything else. Such as how they sprayed DDT on crops and said it was safe now we all know it is deadly... Same ones who said that Agent Orange was a good weed killer... Same ones who want you to use ROUNDUP which is a version of Agent Orange... Yeah I really trust them and their judgement.

Go watch: The Future of Foods.

GM crops are not pest resistant so much as they are pesticide resistant. Being poisonous is a byproduct. GM crops are specifically designed to survive heavy doses of chemical pesticides/herbicides/fungicides. The chemicals really serve no purpose, other than making money for Monsanto, as nonorganic farming yields as much produce as organic farming. It's quite harmful in that most of those chemicals cause cancer and birth defects, among other maladies. Roundup? It's about 17% Agent Orange.

Fertilizers are unnecessary. All a farmer needs to do in order to get good crops is to use crop rotation.

organic farming doesn't produce as much as farming with fertalisers, and other ...ENHANCEMENTS
trust me, I've seen organic farming, it's good stuff, but you just DON'T GET AS MUCH OUT OF IT.

where are you getting this from!? GM crops are pesticide resistant?
are you pulling this from your ass?

last I checked Roundup was a relatively safe, quick to decompose herbicide.
crop rotation is a good thing, but it's not the be all and end all of farming.

it will minimise nutrient consuption, and also help control pests populations. it's an essential farming tool.
but fertalisers are awesome.

besides, many fertalizers are natural. manure of various types for example. Bat guano is high in Nitrogen, which is one of the key elements for plant growth.

Organic farming is HIGHLY productive if you do it right. You have to build up the soil in order for it to be able to grow anything. You can not just walk into a field and plow it then expect crops to grow. The have to build up the soil base and get it ready for crops before anything will really start to grow.

GM crops are pesticide resistant comes from Monsanto actually, they released a "roundup ready" GE seed that will only respond with roundup spray and no others.

If you go to North Carolina near Windsor in specific you can see how these wonderful fertilizers have turned the land to salt and are near unusuable now. I lived there.

Crop rotation yes but unless a farmer is willing to not make any money for a year its pretty hard. And last time i checked it is no longer efficient to hand weed several acres at a time. That is unless you want your per acre costs to become unsustainable.

This is a "chicken in the egg syndrome" - the need for increased pesticides and the need for them breeds the need for a plant to be more tolerant. How about taking the need for such intense pesticides away than banning a simple cell wall modification. Change the needs or types of pesticides being used and this danger you speak of goes away. The hybridization has nothing to do with people using their chemicals.

Alternate. Some crops repel insects so if you carefully alternate your crops by row you can have pest repellant crops growing for harvest with your regular crop. Also people are making leaps in organic herbicides and pesticides, I named one: diotinacious earth. It is a white powder in case you are wondering. Used it too, it wiped out all the bugs.

I am neither for, nor against GM agriculture. Although like some people, one would THINK that the scientists in charge of these programs would use something called 'Common Sense'. Sadly, as evidenced, a majority of them are either lacking of it, or have thrown it out the window alltogether.

Money is replacing common sense, ethics, morality and facts today. Money is power and power is money as they say. The ones pushing this GE and GM have their whole corporation put into it and to stop it would be to destroy them and they are not going to let that happen. Money is really changing hands fast here behind closed doors.

Organic all the way.

Get a garden. That is the only way to be sure what is being grown and HOW.

And just how do you know what's in that first batch of seeds?

Buy it from a reputable source not from wal-mart. Park Seed perhaps.

That still requires you to place a certain amount of trust in the people selling you the seeds. And the people you're buying the seeds from are still a corporation whose sole purpose is to make money, just like the Snidely Whiplashes you're making the GM food producers out to be — even if they seem like nice guys, which I'm sure they are. But how do you know that they won't one day cave and start stocking seeds of the GM crops you're so afraid of, just to stay in business?

GM or no GM, you still have to trust in other people. You can't just turn up a bunch of dirt in your yard and declare yourself self-sufficient.

Thus you stick with companies who have a history behind what they sell which is the point. I will say since Europe is in an outrage over GE and GM crops (banning them) I say there will be plenty of seed to go around that is non-GE or GM.

Oh one last thing, you talking to someone born and raised on and around farms. So I know my way around the field and how to plant as well as NOT plant thank you.

Like the Lemon boy, golden boy and all non red tomatoes (low acid), grape (shape and size again from cherry tomatoes), The red queen beefsteak tomatoes (size and density), and "andy boy" (frost resistance and zone hardiness as its an early variety) All of these common and popular tomatoe breeds are GMs

All corn, beans, potatoes, and cabbage seeds on the market over the past 20 years have been treated for things like borer insects and blight type fungi as well as shortened growing periods and higher production levels again through GM. It was because of this that such vegetables are commonplace now.

Onions have been treated for frost resistance via the genes that create the cell walls and outer layers which makes them possible to grow before the last frost of the season.

Peppers of all types are treated usually for temperature tolerance and water issues (though their pains to grow already if you don't already have the nessasary heat)

So unless you wanna go out of your way to buy organic seeds (which are already under labels of questionable quality) or are able to take cuttings of such annuals your pretty much stuck here too.

heh, not suprised.

gotta love tomatos like big zack...which cap out at about FIVE FRICKIN POUNDS! mmmmm...they're pretty tasty too.

Ive been told alot of these mass produced seeds don't taste the same as heirloom/organic varieties actually. Though it might just be a placebo.

I think those two are probably related because the one I quoted (saw a few years ago new) had 48 oz fruit which is near 4 pounds. Still though thats a fruit that is not natural.


I think humanity would be better served via increasing biodiversity in their crops than trying to do more with an ever decreasing amount of species that we eat (which what GM snd pesticide research is doing really). It would be a far better solution than squabbles like this thread.

awwwww, but I loves my hyoooge tomatos!


though, to be honest, the biggest I'd want a tomato, is such, that when sliced into thick slices...fit nicely over a piece of bread, so that when mayo and salt an pepper are added, make a delicious sammich. any larger is needlessly large.

but be careful.

how much of what we have, as far as size, is bioengineering, and how much of it is selective breeding?
ever see a native corn ear? it looks more like a stem of wheat! small, and....hardly worth harvesting, by today's standards.

same with wheat, for that matter. eggplants used to be...well the size of eggs at best. the plants also grew up to 7' tall!

MOST of the advancement in our crop yields, etc, is through simply grabbing the nicest plants, and propogating them. and doing so for hundreds, even thousands of years.

GE is now taking another step in improvements...and alterations. the question is....are they making good changes? or stupid ones?

or potentially harmful ones?

I'd say, in the short amount of time they've been around, the changes have been more or less entirely positive. But that's just me.

To be fair, basic selective breeding like that has been around a long time. It REALLY took off when Mendel found basic genetics, with dominant and recessive genes, and it began being applied in a more thoroughly understood way.

In the end I think using both in conjunction is the best way to do things. I mean, they aren't mutually exclusive. Plant a season, grabs some seeds from the best plants, plant those next year. Tweak in lab as needed. Theory and tinkering with the bits in a gene sequence or engine is all well and good, but nothing shows performance better than an actual field test.

Eat what you want in whatever quantities I do not care, however when it starts to cause problems in other crops because it causes cross contamination so easily and causes other plants to mutate into the same version now we have problems. As is the case of a soybean farmer in Canada who Monsanto corporation sued for growing GE soybean when he had evidence to show they planted the evidence and they are at fault for growing a crop that is absolutely and unquestionably uncontainable for spreading its GE genes.

Man in point: Percy Schmeiser

So I would care about him because...? We are not talking about the ones who came up with these dangerous crops, we are talking about damages. Watch "the future of foods."

You have not even watched it and you already jump to conclusions about it. Now who is being biased and proving they do not want to think about other posibilities? You know what, I have JUST the videos for you to watch!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A58X73GnzE&feature=user

I suggest you watch it because you are acting like you are infallible and 100% correct and never wrong. You have no credibility because of that.

I had the decency to read what you put up, you need to have the decency and civility to do the same without jumping to conclussions and drawing rash conclussions as well.

Insult me all you want, but you are the one who refused to even watch let alone look into my sources. I never once said I was better than you. Prove me wrong right now that I said I was better than you. Right now.

The way you refuse to look at my evidence shows you have no desire to learn of another idea or another side only to insult others and create false accusations.

You may continue to respond however since you continue to make false accusations and refuse to look at my sources but expect me to look at yours I consider this part of the discussion closed.

Good day to you.

Last word :x

I have watched your video. The man referenced no research documents or any professional literature, and the man himself does not have any professional training on the subject.

_{[citation needed]}

Then you must have seen the part about the man who used to grow GE and GM crops using Monsanto seeds and heard the part on Percy. Proof is in the movie. If not check into Bioneers and keynote, you do need to find the part on Percy Schmeisser though. That is critical in the GE/GM debate.
Also Jeffery Smith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94d-KVorSHM
There is some info on his book, no substitute though, the book actually has all the referances you could ever want.

There is one other woman, I can not come up with her name at 12:58AM however she is from India and about 100 pounds or more overweight. She goes into the GE/GM debate and explains how it is being used to wipe out all the seed crops by patenting by Monsanto and other corporations.

Anyway, look into Percy and Smith and you shall recieve. If you do not get your info then well you never will.

I do have a question, how much time have you designated to investigating GE/GM crops? I have spent over two years listening, reading and watching the world go to hell because of GE and GM crops.

You should read "The Andromeda Strain". Very insightful, and it has tons of references.

Oh yes.. The Institute for Responsible Technology. Yes, I know of them. Radical group with an agenda founded by Mr. Jeffery M. Smith when his Seeds of Deception book took off in 2003. Yes, Jeffery Smith is very, very accomplished for never having finished High School.

His book and his presentations are very big sellers. There's money in fear propaganda after all. I ask would the great wisdom in his books not be free if it was so important? You may say, that an activist needed funding, but he has received it. It's over 3 years since his book, He now wields plenty of power and money, And rather then become a lobbyist, Rather then submit his astonishing findings to the leading scientific and publicly accessible journals, He writes and sells more books! His presentations? One must pay to see them. Even world leaders, scared witless of technology and already generally untrusting of the western world also pay him to see his findings.

Follow the money they say, and one will find the truth. Yes, I have followed this, I've followed this for a very long time.You see, I'm very passionate about knowledge and the power it has. Advances in genetic engineering has feed and saved the lives of NOT hundreds, NOT thousands, NOT even millions, but tens of millions. Scaring already frightened and I should mention STARVING countries with bogus science is not the way to go.

And you- You should be thankful you can have a debate about food. You should be thankful you can choose to be a naturalist, that you can choose to eat organic tomatoes. And when you can offer a solution to the thousands who die in starvation hourly I will listen, as will all the scientific community. We're eager for people who work tirelessly such as Norman Borlaug, not for any personal gain or any kind of money, but to save lives selflessly.

Follow the money indeed and the people who push your GE and GM crops are raking in the money, so why would they ever put out the truth?

Let me just blow all your little "save the planet" out of the water right now:
Europe has mostly banned GE and GM or in process of.
Austrialia and New Zealand have banned GE and GM crops.
The world now halts US imports of food because of GE and GM contamination such as how the US tried to ship Austrailia contaminated soybeans and Greenpeace found out and stopped it with much applaus from Austrials government.

India and Korea now has farmers commiting suicide daily.
India and Korea now have destabilized agriculture systems.

You have not saves tens of millions, you have doomed tens of millions to death with your crops. You have NOT solved hunger at all, for all your miracle talk the world is even worse off today than before.

The miracle of death has happened. Congradulations your crops worked miracles alright. People are dying faster.

_{[citation needed]}

people need to learn that natural material is not necessarily good and manmade material is not necessarily bad

that's my entire commentary, take it or leave it, your reply will fall on deaf ears

Dupont loves you and wants your money. They don't care if you get cancer from their products somewhere down the line, just so long as they are making money.

Organic tends to have higher or break-even yields when looking at both GM and non-GM pesticided crops. They require less water, considering you don't really need to wash them at any point after harvest. Bugs in my lettuce? That's protein.

Especially in the US since one of the earliest things done during Bush's stay at the white house was to remove all requirements for labeling something organic. He appointed one of his lackeys to the FDA and that was pretty much the first thing he did.

That and change the definition of "organic."

You're WRONG! Genetic Modification is a good thing! I mean how else are we expected to create corn that feeds millions and tentacle rapes them with slimy, proboscids at the same time? Wouldn't mind seeing a plant with boobs...

Ok not sure if that is sarcasm and your belief or completely sarcasm... Anyway, we do NOT need GE and GM crops to feed the millions. In fact in the USA farmers are PAID to NOT produce crops. It was such a well known fact years ago Opus comic even picked up on it once since it is so crazy. We have enough food for the world, we just have it unevenly distributed. Too much waste.

Yes, that is completely sarcasm. And yes, I know all that about farmers. My University where I work is partially an agri-science place.

well, I'd not known that strains of eggplant were bred with the Bt toxin.

which is used to help control soft bodied solanum pests. I dunno if it's a problem, but I see.

I was mostly only aware of engineering plants for higher yield, and greater nutritional value.
I think that engineering plants to have toxins like that...is a shaky idea, and agree with you, on this point.

now, if you take another plant, that has a natural defense, that's one thing.

and I'm suprised that engineered plants would require twice as much water as regular.
the whole omg my crops failed cause of drought, I'm ruind...*suicides*
is rather retarded, it i were doing that, I'd plant an experimental crop, to see how the plants fared, see what moisture requirments they had.

sounds like somebody convinced the farmers it was the latest and greatest, and were duped.

Selective breeding is different from GE but fundamentally it's the same thing.
altering a plant's phenotype, and attributes to achieve better crops.

the things that can be done with GE are quite a bit different, often times. but not always. they're different, yet similar.

yaeh, I was wondering about Cancer, since my workplace is sponsoring Breast Cancer Research...I can't help but wonder....was cancer as well known back then? what about all our other "lovely" dieseases?
I wonder if they were there, but people never lived long enough, for the diseases, to become....mature.
what's the worry about having skin cancer from being in the sun too much, if nobody lived long enough for it to get past a little greenish splotch on your skin?

are we fostering new diseases? or just living long enough to be plagued by them?

Well cancer rates have skyrocketed and diets have changed drastically in the last two decades. Mean while elsewhere in the world it is the same old toxins and dioxins.

Difference (KEY) between GE and GM and selective breeding is again you are NOT modifying the plant chemically through science creating a third variable which is not very pretty.

The problem with the farmers is that indeed they (Monsanto) convinced them to buy their seeds and chemicals then failed to mention the other suttle facts about the GM crops which caught up to them. India is a giant basketcase of examples in how Monsanto who GE's and GM's their seeds heavily and then sells them took the public down the road and caused upheaval in the world due to crop failure. Now they are in the Philipines trying to get them hooked as we speek.

As for making crops suitable... Well that is easy, there are plenty of organic pest control methods out there such as (probably going to spell it wrong) diotonacious earth which kills bugs on plants and DOES NOT harm humans less you breath it in heavily or swallow a glass of the dust somehow.

Also, the biggest problem is that crops are grown in the WRONG AREAS!!! You DO NOT grow cotton in Arizona desert regions. You do NOT grow crops in slash/burn or clear cut jungle areas.

This whole "need for GE and GM to save the world from hunger" is a bunch of BULLSHIT started by people who want to make money instead of actually educating people on how to grow crops SUSTAINABLY.

We need sustainability in this world not a cureall crop that grows faster. Also technology has advanced so far that we can now grow plants in caves with grow lights and heaters and if done in mass quanities we could potentially grow whole crops underground in giant "city caves" by using modern technology to do so.

We have enough food, we just need to distribute it fairly and teach people sustainable agriculture like my mother taught me, she still does any chance she gets when neither of us are working and have time off.

/me thumbs up to Zeraio.

I agree with much of what you say. and it's true! flourescent bulbs do put out all of required spectrum for plants to grow, give em light, and feed tehm nutrients, and they will grow.

hmm...

Cancer, is simply mutated cells, so I guess it's possible, for our modern lives to be exposed to mutagens, and carcinogens. no reason why funky plant genetics, and pesticides can't be carcinogenic.

oh, and I might add, RAWR! and prrrble.

True, however most cancers unless they are severe will never show up till we are in our oh 50's or so. Cancer is one of the tricky ones when it comes to medicine, it can lay dormant and not do anything then just explode. On the other hand cancer is also non-linear in how it acts, each person has a vastly different immune system than the others. Thus each of us will or will not get cancer or cancers based on that. Also the kind of cancer we MAY get is influenced by our lifelong activities and diets. Thus we have thousands of kinds of cancer today, each one specific to people in larger areas of diets and so on.

The body though can fight it on its own if it is healthy enough not to say medicine is not needed. The body can thwart cancer if it is VERY healthy and thus when a cancer cell starts to form the body instead of "welcoming" it will immedietly destroy it and cast it out. That is where the true problem starts, unhealthy immune systems.

This was taught to me by a man who was in the army as a medic, I still remember the discussions we had on medicine, fascinating on how the body works.

the immune system doesn't defend against cancer btw

ignore me i dunno what i'm talking about

but i admit it unlike the rest of you

Oh, I will remark though there are many strains of cancer that are so strong your body can not stop them however those usualy kill you relatively fast by comparison.

Yes it does, cancer starts out as a cell that has been "altered" shall we say. It does not just "magically" appear in your body, it takes time, decades even before it shows up. Your body CAN stop it if your immune system is strong enough and destroys the first cell before it starts. If it does it then your safe. However, if your body does not and the cancer cell multiplies NOW you have a problem. Thus different people can survive different periods of time and show different results from the same exposure.

Cancer rates are increasing because cancer is typically a later-life disease. The average human lifespan in developed countries is 70-80+ years. The age that most people live to is actually higher, as that number is dragged down by the children and young adults who die of diseases and accidents and such.

As a result our rates of diseases that take effect in old age are increasing. The Baby Boomers are hitting their 60's.

It is not just environmental alterations and increased instances due to old age, but there is also the fact that we're getting better and better cancer detection technology, and so recognizing smaller and smaller tumors earlier and earlier in the onset.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112

Give that a read/listen. It dispels most of the mule feces you're spewing.

heh, that's a point I made, further down the list, sweety,

great minds think alike, then.

Cancers are later life because it takes a long time to show up, thus we test rats and mice who grow and age hundreds of times faster or at least we should in this case but no one does for fear of bad results.

Here is something for you to think about though: Older lived, yes, quality? No. Look at Japan, they live to be older than most people in the world yet they do not show the same signs of cancer problems.

Interesting no?

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/Table.aspx?Group=TableAll&Year=2004&Display=n
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/.....36/10/668/TBL3

Two minutes on Google says you're wrong. :P

Well unfortunatly only the Japanese study gives a 25 year timeline. If you look at their timeline you will notice cancer rates in most cases are FALLING while some do go up, one the whole the trend if you read the graph over a 25 year period is that the older folks in Japan are staying at about the same health rate or getting better, that goes for both male and female. So nothing proved me wrong there.

Now for the USCS: Scrolling down you will notice there is a high number of digestive system cancers by comparison to other areas, respiratory is to be expected though.

Now let us show how wierd the graph is in proving us neither right nor wrong:
I took the 1999 study: cancers have fallen on the whole from 1999 to 2004 in conjunction with advances made recently, also availability.
Respiratory stayed the same. However digestive is changing from 1999 to 2004 by going down.

However here is the problem: Age? It does not list. If I had to pull one of these two it would be Oxford since you can get specific ages listed while this one does not allow it.

Thus: Japanese are just as healthy today as they were in 1975 with some improvement due to medical science over those 25 years.

USCS though shows nothing by comparison, the ages are not listed, it just says 19 age groups. The argument here is to show age groups not one big table.

You have not proven me wrong, your table from Oxford actually helped my position since it shows the 25 year graph of how the Japanese are just as healthy as ever.

Change it to 2000, click All Sites Data by Age. Looking at the data there are no patterns, some age groups have more instances of cancer in the US, some in Japan. There is no real overall trend between rates of US based cancer suffers and Japan based cancer sufferers. If it was true that Americans suffer more from cancer, the rates ought to be significantly higher across the board. But it's entirely hit or miss, as I said, in some age brackets Japan has higher rates, while in others the US has higher rates.

An interesting thing is that in the data sheet I indicate, that individuals listed as being of Asian or Pacific Islander descent are listed as having raised incidents of cancer in the US before age 40, but the older you get, the US based individuals of Asian descent begin to rank as much as 50% LOWER than the equivalent Japanese age group.

My position: Genetically Modified crops are good.

The companies who sell them are generally bad, even evil. So is being irresponsible with possibly invasive species.

The arguments that the environmentalists here have been repeating are talking points, which simply aren't true. I can understand being against corporate agribiz like Monsanto and Dupont. I am too. But spreading FUD like "Genetically modified food is poisonous and will give you cancer" is an unsubstantiated claim. MOST plants actually have natural pesticides in them. Tomatoes are related to nightshade. You'll get sick if you eat the leafy/stem parts. It's to protect against certain pests.

When it comes down to it, any substance is toxic; it all depends on the dose. I'd rather see my crops have natural pesticides that are common in plants, in my corn, than see them overspray it with chemical pesticides from crop dusters.

Furthermore, genetic modification is actually in some ways LESS extreme than the selective breeding that humans have done in the history of civilization. Ever read about what corn was like before domestication? It's literally mutant freak-grass. So is wheat. And pretty much every other cereal crop we grow. We could NEVER genetically engineer so extreme a change with current technology. It's just not possible.

It's a similar story with bananas, and in fact, without any genetic techniques at all, every banana crop in the world is a direct genetic clone of each other. They use grafts, and don't allow them to mate, in order to get a more consistent product, because the selection done to get edible bananas is VERY unstable. Take a look at what undomesticated bananas look like sometime.

As for the other claims, they're complete nonsense. Yes, they do have better yield, under industrial agriculture conditions. They could ALSO engineer crops that are better in organic conditions too (Monsanto just doesn't make as much money that way; that's why I said that the corporations that sell genetically modified crops are evil). As for being hardier...yes, they are hardier, but they can't make a plant that grows without a good water supply. Your 'What about GM crops dying in india because of drought' thing just shows that any plant doesn't do well in drought, GM or not.

GM crops are not inherently bad. They can be used responsibly, just as most technologies can. If environmental extremists were to realize this, perhaps we could expand the world's food supply a bit. Sometimes, it seems like the extremists believe that ANY exploitation of the earth's resources or human ingenuity is inherently bad. Granted, I don't want to see lax environmental regulations either. The right position, as usual, falls right in the middle.

I feel sorry for you, Victim of Greenpeace's harmful propaganda.

Sadly you are a victim of corporate lies and propaganda. Sad.

I don't look at corporations, or political activists, and let me take this opportunity to remind you, Greenpeace is no longer an environmental group, they are political activists. The Founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace when his group was more or less taken from him by people with less environmental and more political agendas.

That aside, My eye is on scientific research, and not just any scientific research, My eye is on the research that is performed by independent labs, associated with neither corporation nor lobbyist.

And thus is where my opinions are derived.

Well good for you, keep your mind open then. Also the ONLY way to get ANYTHING done in this world which has been proven countless times is to be very deeply involved in politics. That is where laws are made and changes will happen or not happen.

I agree that greenpeace is a politically motivated group, much like the WWF (which has ties to oil companies). However the only significant item that is being reported is the result of a vote by parliament. It's rather hard to bias something like that. Their views and opinions on the vote are inconsequential.

You're a republican?

I don't look at corporations, or political activists, and let me take this opportunity to remind you, Greenpeace is no longer an environmental group, they are political activists. The Founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace when his group was more or less taken from him by people with less environmental and more political agendas.

That aside, My eye is on scientific research, and not just any scientific research, My eye is on the research that is performed by independent labs, associated with neither corporation nor lobbyist.

And thus is where my opinions are derived.

You didn't answer my question.

True, I apologize. I am not a republican. Nor am I democrat at that. The founders of this country despised a party system, and Washington himself said that falling into a two-party system would be the first sign of ruin for this country.

Overall I would like to say this: There is one time and one time alone I would see GE or GM plants as useful: Terraforming a hostile world. Venus for example, it is made up of rocky outcrops and no soil, however it does have abundant rain and extremely high temperature. Problem is that the rain is acid which melts metal. In this case I would put a few million USD into finding a way of making a plant that will change the acid to something less destructive so that eventually humans could live there. We already know how to make chemicals that would neutralize the acids however it is a matter of "how on mass scale?" Thus a plant would help or an algae.

That is the only use though, terraforming.

The terrain is the least of worries if you're intending to colonize Venus.

Did I just not say that? However it is a fact that if you can get the acid problem removed you can cut down on clouds and try and DROP the temperature of the planet. However, I was using venus as an example for transforming hostile environments, I doubt anyone would bother though considering how close to the sun it is. We are looking more deeply into space here however I use a planet we all should know about as an example.

Holy god stop posting. Looking at your level of ignorance and arrogance (yes, moreso than me) are giving me a headache, just from looking at this one page.

Then stop reading and looking.

Here is an irony for you: You call me ignorant and arrogant yet I cite facts and give sources to look up if not personal experience coming from a farm myself and a farming area.

You on the other hand offer NOTHING. You just troll and insult everyone for that matter. I call YOU ignorant and arrogant since you are the only person here who has offered NOTHING to this discussion other than trolling.

So if it hurts your brain, stop reading instead of complaining. Common sense dictates that. No one is twisting your arm to be here.

When I see somebody doing what you are doing, I simply boil with rage, I must speak up and point out the horrific atrocities you commit against the intelligent.

This entire journal and series of comments is a cesspool of nonsense, I'm not going to sit here for hours and point everything out.

then go away.

I'm not sure I'd trust your information, anyway.

Oh that's not very nice, Dio! Come on, can't we all just get along?

Everybody's biased, the more they try to deny it, the more they're biased. But I always thought they should at least have done more researches on GMs before putting modified organisms on the market.

Actually they did none. All they tested it for was growth speed and resistance. No testing on what happens to those who consume it though.

The entirety of this journal and its comments is circlejerking over nonexistant madeup "facts." Half the comments here are so nonsensical and filled with stupid that I have to check twice to make sure it isn't some kind of elaborate troll.

"They require less water, considering you don't really need to wash them at any point after harvest. Bugs in my lettuce? That's protein."

"In fact in the USA farmers are PAID to NOT produce crops."

"Insult me all you want, but you are the one who refused to even watch let alone look into my sources. I never once said I was better than you. Prove me wrong right now that I said I was better than you. Right now." (protip: youtube.com as a source = :D)

"Fertilizers are unnecessary. All a farmer needs to do in order to get good crops is to use crop rotation."

"The body though can fight it on its own if it is healthy enough not to say medicine is not needed. The body can thwart cancer if it is VERY healthy and thus when a cancer cell starts to form the body instead of "welcoming" it will immedietly destroy it and cast it out. That is where the true problem starts, unhealthy immune systems."

Jesus.

Made up facts... Yeah right. That is you opinion and you can keep it. We however, are having a DISCUSSION or TRYING too at least. So instead of trying to poke at us all with your smart ass comments why dont you join in and take a stance instead of troll?

Also most of what you quoted is true if not a common fact. Now if you have nothing to contribute I suggest you walk away.

You are the only one trolling minus one other I can think of. At least everyone else here is at least TRYING to put up facts.

If I smashed my face against my keyboard repeatedly and called it "common facts," "having a discussion," and "TRYING," I'd at least keep it out of public. I don't hate intellectual discourse enough to randomly make stuff up and call it factual like you apparently do.

-TRYING- to put forth facts is not the same as putting forth facts. -TRYING- to put forth facts as if they are actually factual causes more damage than not putting forth facts.

Please, go ahead and try to prove anything you've posted using a source that isn't a anti-genetic modification biased factual black hole.

Thus your a troll. I put up facts from groups that are against, you then put up quotes from Monsanto based groups who make money off of it. Nice trend you have here of calling ANYTHING against your position propaganda and lies. Stop trolling and just leave if your not going to contribute troll.

Use your head: you are not going to find Monsanto putting out papers on even something as simple as "possible dangers" on their GE/GM crops since they run their whole corporation on it. They are of course going to promote it however they can with whatever BS they can.

So what do you expect from anti groups? People saying they love it? Of COURSE your going to have people against it from the anti-GE/GM organizations.

However I say the biggest proof is how the world is turning on your miracle crops at such an alarming rate. Europe is a prime example.

You know, not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Just sayin'.

Of course they're not- Especially if they don't think there IS a danger. I mean, you don't have water companies sending out pamphlets on the risk of water. (Excess urination, bloating, death...) It's bad for business AND expensive, despite plenty of people dying from water overdose (Aka drowning, and the odd electrolyte destabilization) each year.

Well, yes. Generally people belong to groups that share their political beliefs, I'll agree with you there. But that pretty much goes without saying.

[Citation needed] on the "World turning on miracle crops" thing.

Many of the things you're currently eating are, quote "Genetically Modified."

Where do you draw the line, eh? Selective breeding is what brings us our current variety of domesticated crops.

selective breeding though is NOT GE or GM. Also I shop organics, you see I live in an area where there are lots of small farmers and next to NO corporate farms, in fact there are NONE in my area. So we all know where it comes from and what kind of seed is used.

I wish people would stop blaming the doubtlessly proven evilness of the biotech companies on the technology itself.

Before you know, you're blaring about how there are places where "man is not meant to venture" or some stupid shit like that.

A lot of our current luxuries are thanks to men venturing where they shouldn't. :B

GRRRR Monsanto shit... I bet the government is earning money from Monsanto to make such laws... Rotten government.
And yes, I know about Indians committing suicide, I saw about it on Arte TV (German/French culture and information chain). Te situation is even more severe in Brasil with the destruction of rainforest, and in Paraguay where little farmer can't survive anymore, lost in te middle of big Monsanto farms, in the middle of toxic stuff. Cuz the problem of GMO's is: they're resistant to Roundup, the erbicid tey gotta use. And after years and years of Roundup, there are so many remnants that the soil remains toxic during years and years.

In Wallonia (South Belgium), our minister of agriculture (the first really good one for many years), is completely against the use of GMO's in our fields - and in food, controls are very strict about it here.

The danger here comes from what Europe will decide, and the only choice we got here is to vote Ecologist for the European Communities.

I personally am against the genetic engineering of food.

First, our meddling will contaminate other "natural" species of crops, some of which are already incredibly rare. Also, though we are creating better plants, it does not change the fact that a disgusting percentage (30% or more) will not be usable. Lastly, the companies creating these super-foods, much like pharmaceuticals, charge out the yin-yang for these crops (in most cases). Also, the plants are designed to either not provide seed (so the farmer has to buy from the company again) or they are strictly forbidden by contract to do so.

Personally, I would not be adverse to using GE crops for animal feed (seeing as that is what eats up the majority of plant production anyway), but our human-consumption market really needs an overhaul anyway (a topic for another day)

There's my two cents on the matter. If you're looking for more info on topics such as this (and other neat/controversial topics), go check out Science Friday.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/

~Locke

So the government of Canada won't mandate labelling that creates a false sense of alarm in a product notably safer than its alternatives?

Good call.

Allllllright folks not one of us is getting anywhere here and I think I can sum up we are all pretty well decided on the topic. Some of this topic was fun others not for the mudslinging.

I think we should all just stop here and realize that but I would like to referance you all to mafs new topic of: An Unpleasant Trend.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/483214/

I think what Maf wrote their sums up all of our positions indefintely.

Hope to see some of you around in the future for politics and others not.

They are trying to do this around the world. They are trying to make it so that you cannot claim, for instance, that the growth hormone was not used in milk production in Pennsylvania.

As for why? Mostly the World Trade Organization working with Codex have been pushing for people to eat very altered foods...Why? Your guess is as good as anyone's but it practically seems like they are TRYING to kill people all around the world.

Check this out: http://www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org (Some of what they say is a bit radical but there is some useful info in there)

Alternatively look at WTO rules and mandates to countries and look up Codex. Some pretty scary and inane stuff.

*Scoff.* If Genetically Modified plants are so wonderful, why can't we get the corn to ferment sugars into ethanol on its own?

I don't want to consume genetically altered matter if it's an option, but I sure wouldn't mind putting it in my car.

You've officially triggered a comment shitstorm, mifmaf XD Congratulations!


Honestly, though, there's a lot of folks here that just don't have their biology straight when it comes to genetics. I'm not going to make an attempt to sort everyone out individually, but I'm a student of Biology, and I have mixed feelings about GM food. Most of these points have been posted already, but I thought I might be able to bring them together a bit in a way that's (hopefully) not too emotionally charged XD

The question of whether GM food is different from selective breeding is pretty simple to answer....yes, it is. Before I get my throat torn out, though, let me qualify that by noting that I'm not making any judgments about their relative "goodness" with that statement...just that the techniques involved are different. On to the judgment....selective breeding, essentially, models natural evolution on a human time scale. In nature, when an organism has a trait (controlled by a gene) that allows that organism to leave more offspring than others of the same species, the next generation will see more individuals with that trait...that's just common sense. So, if that trait happens to be beneficial to humans as well (as was the trait that gave wild Maize fifty times more seeds on its cob), humans will tend to allow organisms with that trait to survive and the less beneficial traits to die off. Genetic modification, on the other hand, deals with recognizing the genes that cause these traits and using biochemical techniques to insert those genes into other organisms, allowing those organisms to express those traits as well. The argument is that the side effects of this gene implantation are not completely understood and may be harmful if not dealt with caution. This is an entirely valid point. Remember, though, that in some ways, selective breeding is just as blind...the crop you end up with will not only bear the traits that you selected for, but may have all kinds of bizarre traits you weren't even aware of. Corn, as we know it now, gives an astounding yield of food - the wild plant that it came from, Teosinte, only has about eight kernels on it. The trade-off, though, is that nobody thought to breed for nutritional value, and so we have corn that's essentially all starch and little else. And we've based our entire food economy on it.
It's true that most organisms share most of their genes, and by evolutionary law, organisms that are more similar to one another share more of their genes...Humans share many, many more genes with mice than with fruit flies, but share many more still with chimps than mice. It's also entirely possible that what is accomplished now with Genetic Modification could be achieved, given a bit more time, with rigorous selective breeding...plants of all different types evolve all sorts of pesticides all the time, and crop foods wouldn't be an exception. I think it's a really healthy attitude, though, to be cautious and doubtful of GM foods, not only because they have been perhaps fast-tracked to market by for-profit companies (who are, not necessarily wrongly, just trying to make a buck), but because it's good science to be skeptical. Just don't confuse healthy skepticism with the judgment that Genetic Modification is somehow intrinsically "bad"...given enough study and hard work, it's really likely to be a useful tool for agricultural science.

Don't throw all of Genetics into question, here... question the motives of those who intend to use it for personal gain...

Very well put.

I know I'm late to the party, but

lol anecdotes