I took several different languages. I am admittedly biased in that I'm a dyed in the wool linguaphile, but maybe you just had a shitty professor. In a couple of my classes there were people who wanted nothing to do with learning a language, but a good professor is what made the experience (for them anyway) bearable or even at times enjoyable. Well, as enjoyable as a class can be anyway.
It's dangerous enough to screw with Mother Nature even when the objective is crystal clear. Screwing with something as dangerous as genetic engineering
I'd say screwing with nature, including with genetic engineering, is a great solution, just not with humans. Make crops that get the most out of the soil with less fertilizers (for example by producing enzymes like phytases or by having more efficient root architecture), that have increased resistance to yield reducing pests & pathogens by producing things like cry and defensin proteins, that minimize product loss by silencing enzymes that contribute to decay, ect. If we're taking about genetic engineering, engineering crops that make more makes a lot more sense than engineering people who consume less, and with crops we've already established the ethics of changing them. When human life is involved there's too many issues with conventional breeding, let alone genetic engineering, and especially for something like this. Of course,the GE crop topic has already been done to death. This proposal just sounds like someone trying to generate some press for himself. by saying something new & controversial.
You say that as if its a bad thing. You do realize that statement describes ALL plants, right? Ever wonder why insects don't just eat everything green, or why plants go through all the trouble of producing secondary metabolites? Pesticides (among other defense mechanisms of course). The misconception that making plants which produce additional pesticides is somehow bad really grates my nerves, especially in this case where we know darned well how that pesticide works and what it effects..if the lepidoptera somehow magically vanished before we discovered the cry proteins (the pesticides inserted into GE crops) we'd never have been able to figure out they even were pesticides. Its also irksome that breeding for insect resistant varieties which may produce additional naturally occurring insecticidal secondary metabolites is fine and dandy, but when genetic engineering is involved, then they're not insect resistant, they 'make their own pesticides,' which compared to 'insect resistant' sounds nice and scary. And of course no one cares about the pesticides that these crops don't need sprayed on them anymore.
This is why high school biology classes really should spend more time on plant physiology.
Huh, that's a pretty neat catch. That's got to be one of the cooler Easter eggs I've seen in a while. I'm always a bit baffled by how much some people can find in that show...I have a hard enough time just trying to find Derpy...and I usually can't even do that until I see a screenshot pointing it out.
There's a difference between an internet meme from a fandom. Lolcats, advice animals, or rage comics are memes. Browncoats, Trekkies, Whovians, ect. are clearly not. Guess where ponies fall?
We like a particular show. That isn't much different than any other fan group.
Yeah, GloFish and Sea Monkeys are neat and all, but genetically speaking pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. You can find plenty of genetic changes in the produce aisle. Corn from tesointe, wheat with chromosomes from 3 other species, tetraploid potatoes (that won't make you sick), hybrid octaploid strawberries, all kinds of different shapes and colors of squash, eggplant, & tomatoes, seedless citrus, grapes, watermelons, & bananas, stonefruit hybrids, large sweet apples and other fruits bred away from their small sour ancestors, every single brassica, a rainbow of carrots, different speckled beans, and many others, and all the mutations behind these traits, including the less visible ones like altered photoperiod and disease resistance, would be good topics, each with their own history. Oh, and every breed of dog, chicken, cow, ect. I would hope they include these along with the newer genetic engineering examples like GloFish, Bt & HR crops, ect.. I don't think enough people appreciate, or are even aware, of the genetic history of their food and the genetic changes that occurred over the years, or even the changes being made today. I think it'd be kind of neat if they also included some oddities that you don't typically hear of, like white blackberries, pink blueberries, red & pink fleshed apples, citranges, shipova, ect,
I wonder if the concession stand takes the same theme, selling fruits and vegetables along with a little bit on their genetic changes. Triploid apples, papayas with papaya ringspot virus genes, nachos made from corn with the Bt gene...too bad there's no more Flavr Savr tomatoes but they can still use ones with broken lycopene biosynthesis pathways like Huge Lemon Oxheart or White Tomesol, or maybe source a nice dark one like Indigo Rose.
Yeah, that's true too. There are bunches of regulations on how long before harvest you can spray for any given pesticide, and by the time you eat it, the amount left over isn't something I'd worry about. When people complain about pesticides, they rarely take that into consideration (and by rarely I mean I haven't actually seen it happen yet). It's always nice to minimize inputs if you can do so while keeping the output constant (especially if you're a farmer and those sprays are coming out of your bottom line), but unless you're in some country where the oversight is totally crap, the food you get is perfectly safe. I like those 'Dirty Dozen' lists where they compare produce then say which has the most residues without putting it into perspective. It'd be like having a group of world class runners race then calling the ones who come in last slow, even if they're faster than 99.9% of the population.
And that crops grown with pesticides are safer than without is more true than most people realize. Not just ensuring against crop failure due to insect damage, but in the replacement of natural pesticides. Most plants don't want you eating them (with the exception of their fruits of course), so they evolved defense strategies for their leaves, roots, stems, and seeds. When humans started cultivating plants, we also selected for those that tasted better. The reason these plants tasted better was because they had lower levels of chemical defenses, which made them better for consumption, but also put them at greater risk of being attacked by insects and created the need for pesticides. I'd choose a plant without high natural pesticides sprayed with synthetic ones over a plant with high levels of the natural ones any day. It'd be safer, and taste better too. Even now, I'm pretty sure you're still getting more of these natural pesticides than you do residues from produce. Though for most of the people complaining about pesticides, the appeal to nature card circumvents than inconvenient issue.
But anyway, it does grind my nerves that there are so many people who wouldn't know a potato plant from a soybean, yet still go on about all these evil agriculturists with their this and their that and ect. But they've got it all figured out because they watched Food, Inc. Ugh.
Anyone not aware of the risks GMO's are posing on society should really do some reading.
Anyone who bought into the fearmongering and often times outright lies of the anti-GE campaign should do some reading.
The scientists that are developing these seeds and pesticides wont even go near them because there is no long-term research on what risks they could offer 10 or 20 years from now.
Funny, I've spoken with scientists who do just that. I didn't notice them eating any differently than anyone else. I've transformed plants before. I have no problem eating genetically engineered food. I do it all the time.
And there has been long term research (unless you define long term as X+5 so you can always keep moving that goalpost). Darnedest thing is though, what hasn't been done is for someone to propose a plausible mechanism as to why GE crops would be dangerous. We know the genes inserted (cry genes, epsps, bar, nptII, PRSV/CMV coat protein genes) are safe, but for all the cries of 'what might happen' no one has explained what in GE crops allegedly hurts you, how it is produced, its mode of action, ect. I suppose GE crops could kill us all 20 years down the road, but only in the same sense that the smallpox vaccine could do the same thing, or that there could be an invisible heatless dragon in my garage waiting to eat me. After so much study has been done, you can only play the appeal to ignorance card for so long, then the burden of proof shifts to the people believing that to prove it.
Scarey shit.
What's scary is that agriculture is staring down an increasing population, global climate change, increasing energy costs, peak phosphorus, increasing pressure on fresh water resources, evolving pests and pathogens, desertification, deforestation, greater demand for animal protein, and agriculture has to take care l that without expanding the amount of land under the plow, and we've got people having not based in science blanket opposition to what will probably go down as the most significant breakthrough in plant improvement since unraveling Mendelian genetics. Now THAT is scary.
Processed foods I'll give you. People really should move back to whole foods, preferably vegetables, in place of highly processed grains and sugars. Pesticides have their place. There's a lot to be said for moving more toward IPM strategies than we currently have, sure, but they are a necessary evil. Heck, even plants produce their own pesticides. They don't make those secondary metabolites for the fun of it. And it's funny that you mention GE crops as a problem in the same sentence as pesticides, considering the effects they've had on pesticide usage. There's plenty of criticisms to make about how people eat and how food is grown. Processed foods are one. Monoculture & lack of biodiversity, over-fertilization & run-off, water scarcity & depleting aquifers, ect. would be much better practices to gripe about, and issues like peak phosphorus, declining agricultural research, and agriculture in the face of climatic issues are also worth considering. Pesticides and especially biotechnology (in and of themselves anyway) are not...not that pesticide use shouldn't be reduced where possible.
They sue to remove the organic thorn in their side from the marketplace.
The organic industry would really have to be flattering itself to think that. I doubt Monsanto really gives a hoot about them. Maybe if they were more than a small fraction of the market, but they're not. What you're saying would be like saying that Microsoft sues the small fraction of people who use Linux to marginally expand their market.
citation please.
I can't really think of any place that lists all the trials, but I've never heard of one where that wasn't the case. If anyone can show me one where it was Monsanto just randomly suing someone for being cross pollinated I'd be thankful for the link. Strangely, people have no problem saying it happens all the time but can't seem to go into specifics. I can't imagine why.
But that never happened. they were sued for intentionally selecting for and saving the cross pollinated seed. They were caught for spraying crap loads of Round-Up on their fields. That isn't something that just happens. Saying Monsanto goes around just suing farmers is like saying that a restaurant supply company randomly sues restaurants. Farmers are Monsanto's customers. What you think they do wouldn't even be in their best interests.
I didn't mean to imply you had mentioned anything about danger, just explaining why Monsanto being evil is so essential.
Name me one lie that is frequently perpetuated by people who support genetic engineering. The anti-GE people frequently say things like they're unsafe, they don't work, 60 equals 300,000, and a study that says something does not happen means it does, all of which are provably false.
Christ, this is the twenty first century, why are we even having this asinine debate? Wanna talk about 'lies' from the pro-evolution crowd too?
In what field, and how so? I've spoken to quite a few scientists at my university in the fields of botany, agronomy, horticulture, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology. Know how many were anti-GE? Not a one. Which isn't to say that they were all pro-Monsanto, or that they didn't take issue with certain aspects of some things related to or associated with GE, but no opposition.
Most of the organic farmers where I live are small time operations. They don't and wouldn't have the funds necessary if a lawsuit came their way to defend themselves. It would just put them out of business.
Maybe, but I can't think of a single instance of a farmer ever being sued for that. For intentionally selecting for and mass planting a cross pollinated crop, yes, but not for just being cross pollinated.
And lets not forget that a transgene isn't the only thing that can mess up your crops. If I grow OP seeds and my neighbor grown hybrids, or if I grow seedless citrus or persimmons and my neighbor's trees of another variety cross pollinated mine, I could lose my variety if I don't take proper precautions, or my fruit could end up with seeds. This is hardly a unique phenomenon.
Well for one, I think people are worried about genetics being introduced into plants which were never there.
Which also accurately describes new mutations, and lets not forget that people have been against cisgenic and anti-sense GE crops too, so while people are concerned about it, it is a poor rational IMO. Furthermore, plants doesn't really care about that stuff. It's all code to them.
One can argue whether this is good or bad and that is exactly what the discussion is about. In the end though, after all the arguments, we can only know what will happen years after it has happened. It is this unknown and irreversibility which people find concerning.
But you could say the same thing of any other gene (though ease of reversibility depends on the crop. I notice there are no Flavr Savr tomatoes or NewLeaf potatoes around anymore).
Since we don't have long term studies, then it would seem prudent to proceed with caution, but that has not been done in this instance
Actually, the 'no long term studies' claim is part of that misinformation. There have been quite a few (you can find them listed here). That's one of this things that really gets my goat about those anti-GMO groups when they say that. If you're going to go around doing some sort of campaign one way or the other, about GE crops, maybe a basic literature review would be a good place to start? It either ignorance, laziness, or deceit on their part. Could there be problems with them? Strictly speaking, yes, I suppose, there could always be an unknown unknown, but looking at the things currently inserted: Cry1ab & other cry proteins, epsps, nptII, bar, CMV/PRSV CP, I just don't see how those are going to hurt you in any way at all. Some of them you may have already eaten from the natural sources even if you avoid GE food. We have known benefits, and zero evidence, either in theory or practice, to indicate that these, or the technique itself, is harmful. Y No one is saying we shouldn't proceed with caution, but at this point, we have more than enough evidence to move forward. The notion that we should stop something with known benefits over undescribed and unfound potential danger is the same thing that keeps the anti-vaccine movement going, and look at how well that one turned out.
From what I've seen, much of the fear over GE crops is over fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. People say they don't like them because they have pesticides built in. so does every other plant on the planet. They don't like them because they are designed to resist herbicides. These herbicides are much more benign than previously used ones and prevent the need for environmentally damaging tillage, and furthermore, non-GE crops are often bred for the same types of traits. They hear they cause organ damage. There has never been a single study that could convincingly prove that and the ones claiming such were either never published, withdrawn for their flaws, or widely criticized for shoddy methodology. Fear, ignorance, misunderstanding. What else can I ca
I would, but I've got this weird thing about superstitious scientifically illiterate luddites dragging the rest of civilization back to the dark ages because they couldn't be bothered to pay attention in high school science classes.
You could take 30 seconds to read it from the source maybe?
But yeah, I'm definitely a shill. Secretly, every single person with a basic knowledge of genetics, botany, or agriculture is being paid trillions of dollars by the Great Monsanto Shadow Conspiracy (a subsidy of the Alien Reptilian Conspiracy) to try to convince people that you can safely eat DNA, that maybe you should crack a basic biology textbook every now and again, and that you should read about things like lawsuits before taking them at face value like a credulous know-nothing. I'm definitely being paid by Monsanto to advocate such nasties as fact checking, basic logic, and science.
That is why people are concerned with the unilateral roll-out of GMO's. It affects their crops whether they want to buy the seeds or not.
How is that different form any other crop with different traits? If I don't want, say, orange carrots, instead choosing yellow, and my neighbor grows orange ones, if I don't take precautionary measures I might end up with orange carrots whether I want to buy seeds with the genes for orange color or not, yet of all the issues in cross pollination and genes showing up where they're not wanted over the years this is the only one that people seem to make a fuss about. Why? People aren't concerned with GE crops for this reason, they are, by and large, against them for the same reason some people are against vaccines. Fear, ignorance, misinformation. The last one seems to be particularly abundant.
Apparently, now they have to be worried about getting sued out of business by a big multinational corporation if they intentionally select for the transgene and grow those seeds throughout their field
how is it even possible that a multi-billion dollar company can threaten to sue a small farmer and then force them to sell out to them when the farmer cannot mount a proper defense
good news everyone: It isn't. They don't go around doing that. While they have sued farmers, it is a myth that they go around and do it willy nilly putting farmers out of business, twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally, like so many seem to think they do.
The problem here is that there's no foolproof way to prevent this variation of copyright infringement
There is GURTs, the so-called terminator traits. But everyone complained about those. So they instead complain bout cross pollination (even though I'm convinced that most anti-GE folks who do have no idea what that even means). Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I grow heirloom varieties of plants. If they cross with another variety, they will no longer produce true to seed as the same variety. If i start a farm, and someone else plants another variety, should I be able to sue for non-GE genes finding their was to places where they're not wanted? Hey, your Country Gentleman corn crossed was uncontrolled and crossed with my Golden Bantam, lawsuit! Or should I just be aware of this and take precautions like farmers have been doing for years but these organic farmers can't seem to be bothered to do? If they're growing OP seed cross pollenation is bad anyway and if they're growing hybrids they just buy new seed anyway. I don't get it.
1) As I understand, they usually catch people when they buy large amounts of Round-Up and spray in on their field. Then the anti-GMO people take their side and claim that the cross-pollination was accidental and happened unknowingly. I suppose it was just a weird coincidence that the farmers in question were spraying their field with something that kills all but plants with the gene Monsanto put in. Those lawsuits are not all that common, and they don't just happen, but they do make great exaggerated talking points for anti-agricultural science groups.
2) Personally, I'd advocate public research. I don't think plant patents are all that bad. First, plant breeders deserve to make a living too. Luther Burbank, whose potato varieties we still use to this day, made a relatively modest living despite the huge contributions to agriculture he made as a result of not having control over his work. I think there's something wrong with that. Second, some very good plants would not be around were it not from the royalties from patents. My all time favorite apple, Snowsweet,would not exist were it not for the profits from other patented apple varieties (like Honeycrisp) supporting the breeders. If we had more publicly funded research, breeders could work without having to worry about patents, and everyone else could use plants without having to worry about those issues too, like an open source type model. Unfortunately, agricultural funding is being slashed in universities across the nation for some stupid reason well beyond my comprehension (well, actually, I think I do understand it. We have so much food in developed countries and farming is so efficient that who even thinks about agriculture anymore?), and when it comes to genetically engineered seeds, the regulations are so moronically strict and the hoops so costly to jump through that the companies must ensure they make a profit. So, unless we do have more 'open source' publicly funded research, this is what we've got, and if we don't like it we've really no one to blame but ourselves for being so damned ignorant about agriculture.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell if that's an argument against learning a foreign language, or an argument for learning more than one.
I took several different languages. I am admittedly biased in that I'm a dyed in the wool linguaphile, but maybe you just had a shitty professor. In a couple of my classes there were people who wanted nothing to do with learning a language, but a good professor is what made the experience (for them anyway) bearable or even at times enjoyable. Well, as enjoyable as a class can be anyway.
It's dangerous enough to screw with Mother Nature even when the objective is crystal clear. Screwing with something as dangerous as genetic engineering
I'd say screwing with nature, including with genetic engineering, is a great solution, just not with humans. Make crops that get the most out of the soil with less fertilizers (for example by producing enzymes like phytases or by having more efficient root architecture), that have increased resistance to yield reducing pests & pathogens by producing things like cry and defensin proteins, that minimize product loss by silencing enzymes that contribute to decay, ect. If we're taking about genetic engineering, engineering crops that make more makes a lot more sense than engineering people who consume less, and with crops we've already established the ethics of changing them. When human life is involved there's too many issues with conventional breeding, let alone genetic engineering, and especially for something like this. Of course,the GE crop topic has already been done to death. This proposal just sounds like someone trying to generate some press for himself. by saying something new & controversial.
(they generate their own pesticide
You say that as if its a bad thing. You do realize that statement describes ALL plants, right? Ever wonder why insects don't just eat everything green, or why plants go through all the trouble of producing secondary metabolites? Pesticides (among other defense mechanisms of course). The misconception that making plants which produce additional pesticides is somehow bad really grates my nerves, especially in this case where we know darned well how that pesticide works and what it effects..if the lepidoptera somehow magically vanished before we discovered the cry proteins (the pesticides inserted into GE crops) we'd never have been able to figure out they even were pesticides. Its also irksome that breeding for insect resistant varieties which may produce additional naturally occurring insecticidal secondary metabolites is fine and dandy, but when genetic engineering is involved, then they're not insect resistant, they 'make their own pesticides,' which compared to 'insect resistant' sounds nice and scary. And of course no one cares about the pesticides that these crops don't need sprayed on them anymore.
This is why high school biology classes really should spend more time on plant physiology.
Huh, that's a pretty neat catch. That's got to be one of the cooler Easter eggs I've seen in a while. I'm always a bit baffled by how much some people can find in that show...I have a hard enough time just trying to find Derpy...and I usually can't even do that until I see a screenshot pointing it out.
There's a difference between an internet meme from a fandom. Lolcats, advice animals, or rage comics are memes. Browncoats, Trekkies, Whovians, ect. are clearly not. Guess where ponies fall?
We like a particular show. That isn't much different than any other fan group.
Yeah, GloFish and Sea Monkeys are neat and all, but genetically speaking pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. You can find plenty of genetic changes in the produce aisle. Corn from tesointe, wheat with chromosomes from 3 other species, tetraploid potatoes (that won't make you sick), hybrid octaploid strawberries, all kinds of different shapes and colors of squash, eggplant, & tomatoes, seedless citrus, grapes, watermelons, & bananas, stonefruit hybrids, large sweet apples and other fruits bred away from their small sour ancestors, every single brassica, a rainbow of carrots, different speckled beans, and many others, and all the mutations behind these traits, including the less visible ones like altered photoperiod and disease resistance, would be good topics, each with their own history. Oh, and every breed of dog, chicken, cow, ect. I would hope they include these along with the newer genetic engineering examples like GloFish, Bt & HR crops, ect.. I don't think enough people appreciate, or are even aware, of the genetic history of their food and the genetic changes that occurred over the years, or even the changes being made today. I think it'd be kind of neat if they also included some oddities that you don't typically hear of, like white blackberries, pink blueberries, red & pink fleshed apples, citranges, shipova, ect,
I wonder if the concession stand takes the same theme, selling fruits and vegetables along with a little bit on their genetic changes. Triploid apples, papayas with papaya ringspot virus genes, nachos made from corn with the Bt gene...too bad there's no more Flavr Savr tomatoes but they can still use ones with broken lycopene biosynthesis pathways like Huge Lemon Oxheart or White Tomesol, or maybe source a nice dark one like Indigo Rose.
Stem Cells That May Make Eggs Found In Women
So, as opposed to the egg cells found in men?
Yeah, that's true too. There are bunches of regulations on how long before harvest you can spray for any given pesticide, and by the time you eat it, the amount left over isn't something I'd worry about. When people complain about pesticides, they rarely take that into consideration (and by rarely I mean I haven't actually seen it happen yet). It's always nice to minimize inputs if you can do so while keeping the output constant (especially if you're a farmer and those sprays are coming out of your bottom line), but unless you're in some country where the oversight is totally crap, the food you get is perfectly safe. I like those 'Dirty Dozen' lists where they compare produce then say which has the most residues without putting it into perspective. It'd be like having a group of world class runners race then calling the ones who come in last slow, even if they're faster than 99.9% of the population.
And that crops grown with pesticides are safer than without is more true than most people realize. Not just ensuring against crop failure due to insect damage, but in the replacement of natural pesticides. Most plants don't want you eating them (with the exception of their fruits of course), so they evolved defense strategies for their leaves, roots, stems, and seeds. When humans started cultivating plants, we also selected for those that tasted better. The reason these plants tasted better was because they had lower levels of chemical defenses, which made them better for consumption, but also put them at greater risk of being attacked by insects and created the need for pesticides. I'd choose a plant without high natural pesticides sprayed with synthetic ones over a plant with high levels of the natural ones any day. It'd be safer, and taste better too. Even now, I'm pretty sure you're still getting more of these natural pesticides than you do residues from produce. Though for most of the people complaining about pesticides, the appeal to nature card circumvents than inconvenient issue.
But anyway, it does grind my nerves that there are so many people who wouldn't know a potato plant from a soybean, yet still go on about all these evil agriculturists with their this and their that and ect. But they've got it all figured out because they watched Food, Inc. Ugh.
Anyone not aware of the risks GMO's are posing on society should really do some reading.
Anyone who bought into the fearmongering and often times outright lies of the anti-GE campaign should do some reading.
The scientists that are developing these seeds and pesticides wont even go near them because there is no long-term research on what risks they could offer 10 or 20 years from now.
Funny, I've spoken with scientists who do just that. I didn't notice them eating any differently than anyone else. I've transformed plants before. I have no problem eating genetically engineered food. I do it all the time.
And there has been long term research (unless you define long term as X+5 so you can always keep moving that goalpost). Darnedest thing is though, what hasn't been done is for someone to propose a plausible mechanism as to why GE crops would be dangerous. We know the genes inserted (cry genes, epsps, bar, nptII, PRSV/CMV coat protein genes) are safe, but for all the cries of 'what might happen' no one has explained what in GE crops allegedly hurts you, how it is produced, its mode of action, ect. I suppose GE crops could kill us all 20 years down the road, but only in the same sense that the smallpox vaccine could do the same thing, or that there could be an invisible heatless dragon in my garage waiting to eat me. After so much study has been done, you can only play the appeal to ignorance card for so long, then the burden of proof shifts to the people believing that to prove it.
Scarey shit.
What's scary is that agriculture is staring down an increasing population, global climate change, increasing energy costs, peak phosphorus, increasing pressure on fresh water resources, evolving pests and pathogens, desertification, deforestation, greater demand for animal protein, and agriculture has to take care l that without expanding the amount of land under the plow, and we've got people having not based in science blanket opposition to what will probably go down as the most significant breakthrough in plant improvement since unraveling Mendelian genetics. Now THAT is scary.
pesticides, GMOs and processed foods
Processed foods I'll give you. People really should move back to whole foods, preferably vegetables, in place of highly processed grains and sugars. Pesticides have their place. There's a lot to be said for moving more toward IPM strategies than we currently have, sure, but they are a necessary evil. Heck, even plants produce their own pesticides. They don't make those secondary metabolites for the fun of it. And it's funny that you mention GE crops as a problem in the same sentence as pesticides, considering the effects they've had on pesticide usage. There's plenty of criticisms to make about how people eat and how food is grown. Processed foods are one. Monoculture & lack of biodiversity, over-fertilization & run-off, water scarcity & depleting aquifers, ect. would be much better practices to gripe about, and issues like peak phosphorus, declining agricultural research, and agriculture in the face of climatic issues are also worth considering. Pesticides and especially biotechnology (in and of themselves anyway) are not...not that pesticide use shouldn't be reduced where possible.
They sue to remove the organic thorn in their side from the marketplace.
The organic industry would really have to be flattering itself to think that. I doubt Monsanto really gives a hoot about them. Maybe if they were more than a small fraction of the market, but they're not. What you're saying would be like saying that Microsoft sues the small fraction of people who use Linux to marginally expand their market.
citation please.
I can't really think of any place that lists all the trials, but I've never heard of one where that wasn't the case. If anyone can show me one where it was Monsanto just randomly suing someone for being cross pollinated I'd be thankful for the link. Strangely, people have no problem saying it happens all the time but can't seem to go into specifics. I can't imagine why.
But that never happened. they were sued for intentionally selecting for and saving the cross pollinated seed. They were caught for spraying crap loads of Round-Up on their fields. That isn't something that just happens. Saying Monsanto goes around just suing farmers is like saying that a restaurant supply company randomly sues restaurants. Farmers are Monsanto's customers. What you think they do wouldn't even be in their best interests.
I didn't mean to imply you had mentioned anything about danger, just explaining why Monsanto being evil is so essential.
Name me one lie that is frequently perpetuated by people who support genetic engineering. The anti-GE people frequently say things like they're unsafe, they don't work, 60 equals 300,000, and a study that says something does not happen means it does, all of which are provably false.
Christ, this is the twenty first century, why are we even having this asinine debate? Wanna talk about 'lies' from the pro-evolution crowd too?
In what field, and how so? I've spoken to quite a few scientists at my university in the fields of botany, agronomy, horticulture, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology. Know how many were anti-GE? Not a one. Which isn't to say that they were all pro-Monsanto, or that they didn't take issue with certain aspects of some things related to or associated with GE, but no opposition.
Most of the organic farmers where I live are small time operations. They don't and wouldn't have the funds necessary if a lawsuit came their way to defend themselves. It would just put them out of business.
Maybe, but I can't think of a single instance of a farmer ever being sued for that. For intentionally selecting for and mass planting a cross pollinated crop, yes, but not for just being cross pollinated.
And lets not forget that a transgene isn't the only thing that can mess up your crops. If I grow OP seeds and my neighbor grown hybrids, or if I grow seedless citrus or persimmons and my neighbor's trees of another variety cross pollinated mine, I could lose my variety if I don't take proper precautions, or my fruit could end up with seeds. This is hardly a unique phenomenon.
Well for one, I think people are worried about genetics being introduced into plants which were never there.
Which also accurately describes new mutations, and lets not forget that people have been against cisgenic and anti-sense GE crops too, so while people are concerned about it, it is a poor rational IMO. Furthermore, plants doesn't really care about that stuff. It's all code to them.
One can argue whether this is good or bad and that is exactly what the discussion is about. In the end though, after all the arguments, we can only know what will happen years after it has happened. It is this unknown and irreversibility which people find concerning.
But you could say the same thing of any other gene (though ease of reversibility depends on the crop. I notice there are no Flavr Savr tomatoes or NewLeaf potatoes around anymore).
Since we don't have long term studies, then it would seem prudent to proceed with caution, but that has not been done in this instance
Actually, the 'no long term studies' claim is part of that misinformation. There have been quite a few (you can find them listed here). That's one of this things that really gets my goat about those anti-GMO groups when they say that. If you're going to go around doing some sort of campaign one way or the other, about GE crops, maybe a basic literature review would be a good place to start? It either ignorance, laziness, or deceit on their part. Could there be problems with them? Strictly speaking, yes, I suppose, there could always be an unknown unknown, but looking at the things currently inserted: Cry1ab & other cry proteins, epsps, nptII, bar, CMV/PRSV CP, I just don't see how those are going to hurt you in any way at all. Some of them you may have already eaten from the natural sources even if you avoid GE food. We have known benefits, and zero evidence, either in theory or practice, to indicate that these, or the technique itself, is harmful. Y No one is saying we shouldn't proceed with caution, but at this point, we have more than enough evidence to move forward. The notion that we should stop something with known benefits over undescribed and unfound potential danger is the same thing that keeps the anti-vaccine movement going, and look at how well that one turned out.
From what I've seen, much of the fear over GE crops is over fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. People say they don't like them because they have pesticides built in. so does every other plant on the planet. They don't like them because they are designed to resist herbicides. These herbicides are much more benign than previously used ones and prevent the need for environmentally damaging tillage, and furthermore, non-GE crops are often bred for the same types of traits. They hear they cause organ damage. There has never been a single study that could convincingly prove that and the ones claiming such were either never published, withdrawn for their flaws, or widely criticized for shoddy methodology. Fear, ignorance, misunderstanding. What else can I ca
Yes, it was very sneaky of me to make a distinction between the 60 real plaintiffs and the 300000 being claimed in the summary's headline.
Math: the the sure sign of a paid shill.
I would, but I've got this weird thing about superstitious scientifically illiterate luddites dragging the rest of civilization back to the dark ages because they couldn't be bothered to pay attention in high school science classes.
You could take 30 seconds to read it from the source maybe?
But yeah, I'm definitely a shill. Secretly, every single person with a basic knowledge of genetics, botany, or agriculture is being paid trillions of dollars by the Great Monsanto Shadow Conspiracy (a subsidy of the Alien Reptilian Conspiracy) to try to convince people that you can safely eat DNA, that maybe you should crack a basic biology textbook every now and again, and that you should read about things like lawsuits before taking them at face value like a credulous know-nothing. I'm definitely being paid by Monsanto to advocate such nasties as fact checking, basic logic, and science.
That is why people are concerned with the unilateral roll-out of GMO's. It affects their crops whether they want to buy the seeds or not.
How is that different form any other crop with different traits? If I don't want, say, orange carrots, instead choosing yellow, and my neighbor grows orange ones, if I don't take precautionary measures I might end up with orange carrots whether I want to buy seeds with the genes for orange color or not, yet of all the issues in cross pollination and genes showing up where they're not wanted over the years this is the only one that people seem to make a fuss about. Why? People aren't concerned with GE crops for this reason, they are, by and large, against them for the same reason some people are against vaccines. Fear, ignorance, misinformation. The last one seems to be particularly abundant.
Apparently, now they have to be worried about getting sued out of business by a big multinational corporation if they intentionally select for the transgene and grow those seeds throughout their field
Fixed that for you.
how is it even possible that a multi-billion dollar company can threaten to sue a small farmer and then force them to sell out to them when the farmer cannot mount a proper defense
good news everyone: It isn't. They don't go around doing that. While they have sued farmers, it is a myth that they go around and do it willy nilly putting farmers out of business, twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally, like so many seem to think they do.
Please, next time, don't blame us scientists.
The anti-GMO groups out there are very clearly anti-science. Scientists will be blamed for all problems, real and imaginary, that occur or don't.
The problem here is that there's no foolproof way to prevent this variation of copyright infringement
There is GURTs, the so-called terminator traits. But everyone complained about those. So they instead complain bout cross pollination (even though I'm convinced that most anti-GE folks who do have no idea what that even means). Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I grow heirloom varieties of plants. If they cross with another variety, they will no longer produce true to seed as the same variety. If i start a farm, and someone else plants another variety, should I be able to sue for non-GE genes finding their was to places where they're not wanted? Hey, your Country Gentleman corn crossed was uncontrolled and crossed with my Golden Bantam, lawsuit! Or should I just be aware of this and take precautions like farmers have been doing for years but these organic farmers can't seem to be bothered to do? If they're growing OP seed cross pollenation is bad anyway and if they're growing hybrids they just buy new seed anyway. I don't get it.
1) As I understand, they usually catch people when they buy large amounts of Round-Up and spray in on their field. Then the anti-GMO people take their side and claim that the cross-pollination was accidental and happened unknowingly. I suppose it was just a weird coincidence that the farmers in question were spraying their field with something that kills all but plants with the gene Monsanto put in. Those lawsuits are not all that common, and they don't just happen, but they do make great exaggerated talking points for anti-agricultural science groups.
2) Personally, I'd advocate public research. I don't think plant patents are all that bad. First, plant breeders deserve to make a living too. Luther Burbank, whose potato varieties we still use to this day, made a relatively modest living despite the huge contributions to agriculture he made as a result of not having control over his work. I think there's something wrong with that. Second, some very good plants would not be around were it not from the royalties from patents. My all time favorite apple, Snowsweet,would not exist were it not for the profits from other patented apple varieties (like Honeycrisp) supporting the breeders. If we had more publicly funded research, breeders could work without having to worry about patents, and everyone else could use plants without having to worry about those issues too, like an open source type model. Unfortunately, agricultural funding is being slashed in universities across the nation for some stupid reason well beyond my comprehension (well, actually, I think I do understand it. We have so much food in developed countries and farming is so efficient that who even thinks about agriculture anymore?), and when it comes to genetically engineered seeds, the regulations are so moronically strict and the hoops so costly to jump through that the companies must ensure they make a profit. So, unless we do have more 'open source' publicly funded research, this is what we've got, and if we don't like it we've really no one to blame but ourselves for being so damned ignorant about agriculture.