Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Are we such wimps that we're now going out of our way to be offended by the fantasy worlds that we're voluntarily taking part in?
As far as I'm aware, the seeds you buy with these traits come with a "best practices" information sheet that tells you exactly this kind of shit. That farmers still ignore that advice, even knowing what the outcome will be, can hardly be blamed on the biotech companies. After all, the farmers are the ones ultimately putting the seed in the ground. But hey, anything to bitch about Monsanto and the rest, right?
As far as I know, there are no seeds at all on the market using so-called "Terminator" technology, and never have been. So everyone crying over sterile seeds just doesn't really know what they're talking about. Now, if they're talking about hybrid vigor and how second generation seeds don't perform as well as first-generation hybrids, that's just genetics for you, not some grand conspiracy to make farmers buy seeds year after year rather than saving them.
Fortunately, we have a Constitution thing that puts certain limits not only on the government, but also on the will of the people. The Constitution trumps all of that, whether we have a representative republic or a direct democracy, and for exactly that reason.
Just ask our NSA for the password, since the USB stick probably has that tiny wireless chip in it that allows them to hijack and snoop on air-gapped computers that was reported recently.
We have more than enough food. It's a distribution problem...
I don't mean to sound like I disagree with you, but I hate hearing this arguement being made as a reason why GMO food is not needed. I wish I could remember who I originally heard express it, but I read a reply to this argument that went something like "so instead of just a distribution problem, you would rather it be both a distribution AND a supply problem?" I would rather only have to deal with one issue because of an excess of food than just barely being able to make it with the supply we have AND assholes stealing it all as well.
Africa, for example, had more than enough food in the 1960s and 1970s
This may be true, but does that take into account the population growth since then? I really don't know. According to this first link I found from Googling "world population 1970", the world population was roughly half what it is today. Whether or not our population should be increasing at that rate is a different argument, but it is the reality.
Of course it was, that and the Pusztai affair are really the only studies that the anti-GMO propaganda machine have to continually trot out. It matters not that these were shown to be bunk, because they know people will typically believe what they read and not take the time to research the rest of the story, especially when it caters to their existing beliefs.
Corn with a peanut protein would only have that protein in it if it was specifically put there. If anyone was putting a peanut protein in it, there would only be a concern if the protein (actually the gene that creates the protein) being put in was one that actually caused an allergic reaction, which would be a pretty unlikely candidate for a transgenic. Peanuts don't cause allergic reactions because of their peanut essence, and a protein doesn't necessarily cause an allergic reaction just because it was produced in a peanut.
Being a GMO food also doesn't magically induce some special extra mutation property into a plant either. A GMO plant wouldn't "diverge a great deal further" from a non-GMO unless you can propose a mechanism that would cause a higher rate of mutation due to transgene engineering.
Not sure what either of those articles has to do with the safety of food, other than "omg genetics". Are these bacteria on the market as a food product? I find their conclusion that the bacteria would kill off ALL terrestrial plant life to be pretty tenuous too.
What would warrant the extra caution for a GMO plant that contains one extra, well known gene that has been safety tested to regulatory satisfaction over and beyond the same plant that lacks that gene but is still subject to the same evolutionary selection pressures and random mutations? Obviously they do seem to carry huge benefit to someone (farmers), or they wouldn't be priced higher yet still purchased.
Food is not a drug. Drugs are specifically designed to interrupt or change normal metabolic pathways and processes, whereas food is not. That drugs take years to make it to market and food does not is to be expected.
Because even conventionally grown foods aren't "safe", such as potatoes that contain solanine and apple seeds that contain cyanide. Conventionally grown foods are subject to random mutation and yet are not checked for safety, yet genetically modified foods that we know precisely how they are modified are tested because genetics = scary.
Next time you want to reply to a post with your genius logic, do it using the technology that was around when the first amendment was written and save yourself the embarrassment.
When you attempt to bake insecticides into a plant destined for human and animal consumption, the question is pretty damned valid.
Only to someone whose entire knowledge of the subject is "insecticide", rather than BT-produced Cry proteins, which we know an awful lot about, such as how insects react to them (explodes their alkaline guts, which is why they're used) and how humans react to them (which is to say, not at all, since the proteins are digested in mammalian acidic guts that both renders them inactive and lacks the appropriate receptors for them to bind to, causing the insect explosion).
Seriously, there are people who actually know this stuff. No one is just making this shit up willy-nilly.
They say people won't buy GMO-labeled food when what they mean is people won't buy GMO-labeled food at the same price as already-familiar food.
No, what they mean is that people won't buy GMO-labeled food in the face of the anti-GMO FUD machine of propaganda and lies perpetrated by the organic food industry telling people that GMO foods cause cancer and a hundred other diseases despite evidence to the contrary. Also, the cost of massive changes in labeling and packaging to accommodate that kind of labeling mandate will probably cause the price of food to go up by a not insignificant amount. It's not as easy as just slapping a sticker on something that says "may contain GMOs".
Because the public is so willing to listen to scientists, right? *cough creationists cough*
At least in the US, there's an underlying sentiment of anti-intellectualism and "my opinion is just as valid as your knowledge", and a lot of people who just straight out don't trust scientists because of their own self-ignorance. This is why we have things spreading like creationism, anti-GMO activity, climate change debate, etc. If it were that easy, these things wouldn't exist. You can lead a horse to water....
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Are we such wimps that we're now going out of our way to be offended by the fantasy worlds that we're voluntarily taking part in?
[citation needed]
As far as I'm aware, the seeds you buy with these traits come with a "best practices" information sheet that tells you exactly this kind of shit. That farmers still ignore that advice, even knowing what the outcome will be, can hardly be blamed on the biotech companies. After all, the farmers are the ones ultimately putting the seed in the ground. But hey, anything to bitch about Monsanto and the rest, right?
Hey now, don't be bringing facts into the anti-GMO discussion! They hate that shit.
As far as I know, there are no seeds at all on the market using so-called "Terminator" technology, and never have been. So everyone crying over sterile seeds just doesn't really know what they're talking about. Now, if they're talking about hybrid vigor and how second generation seeds don't perform as well as first-generation hybrids, that's just genetics for you, not some grand conspiracy to make farmers buy seeds year after year rather than saving them.
He's not in the chemical engineering business; he's in the empire business.
Barrel shroud? That's the thing on the shoulder that goes up, right?
I did, since I almost joined that band. Those were the days.
Fortunately, we have a Constitution thing that puts certain limits not only on the government, but also on the will of the people. The Constitution trumps all of that, whether we have a representative republic or a direct democracy, and for exactly that reason.
Just ask our NSA for the password, since the USB stick probably has that tiny wireless chip in it that allows them to hijack and snoop on air-gapped computers that was reported recently.
I don't mean to sound like I disagree with you, but I hate hearing this arguement being made as a reason why GMO food is not needed. I wish I could remember who I originally heard express it, but I read a reply to this argument that went something like "so instead of just a distribution problem, you would rather it be both a distribution AND a supply problem?" I would rather only have to deal with one issue because of an excess of food than just barely being able to make it with the supply we have AND assholes stealing it all as well.
This may be true, but does that take into account the population growth since then? I really don't know. According to this first link I found from Googling "world population 1970", the world population was roughly half what it is today. Whether or not our population should be increasing at that rate is a different argument, but it is the reality.
Of course it was, that and the Pusztai affair are really the only studies that the anti-GMO propaganda machine have to continually trot out. It matters not that these were shown to be bunk, because they know people will typically believe what they read and not take the time to research the rest of the story, especially when it caters to their existing beliefs.
Being a GMO food also doesn't magically induce some special extra mutation property into a plant either. A GMO plant wouldn't "diverge a great deal further" from a non-GMO unless you can propose a mechanism that would cause a higher rate of mutation due to transgene engineering.
[citation needed]
Oh, look. It was. They apologized for it. And cited papers that don't exist.
What would warrant the extra caution for a GMO plant that contains one extra, well known gene that has been safety tested to regulatory satisfaction over and beyond the same plant that lacks that gene but is still subject to the same evolutionary selection pressures and random mutations? Obviously they do seem to carry huge benefit to someone (farmers), or they wouldn't be priced higher yet still purchased.
[citation needed]
Food is not a drug. Drugs are specifically designed to interrupt or change normal metabolic pathways and processes, whereas food is not. That drugs take years to make it to market and food does not is to be expected.
It's misinformation and scare words like "tainted" that help fuel the anti-GMO propaganda machine. Obviously, that machine is working pretty well.
Because even conventionally grown foods aren't "safe", such as potatoes that contain solanine and apple seeds that contain cyanide. Conventionally grown foods are subject to random mutation and yet are not checked for safety, yet genetically modified foods that we know precisely how they are modified are tested because genetics = scary.
Why don't you develop one, sell it for less than the Nest or Honeywell and tell Slashdot to fuck off while you laugh all the way to the bank? :D
Next time you want to reply to a post with your genius logic, do it using the technology that was around when the first amendment was written and save yourself the embarrassment.
Only to someone whose entire knowledge of the subject is "insecticide", rather than BT-produced Cry proteins, which we know an awful lot about, such as how insects react to them (explodes their alkaline guts, which is why they're used) and how humans react to them (which is to say, not at all, since the proteins are digested in mammalian acidic guts that both renders them inactive and lacks the appropriate receptors for them to bind to, causing the insect explosion).
Seriously, there are people who actually know this stuff. No one is just making this shit up willy-nilly.
No, what they mean is that people won't buy GMO-labeled food in the face of the anti-GMO FUD machine of propaganda and lies perpetrated by the organic food industry telling people that GMO foods cause cancer and a hundred other diseases despite evidence to the contrary. Also, the cost of massive changes in labeling and packaging to accommodate that kind of labeling mandate will probably cause the price of food to go up by a not insignificant amount. It's not as easy as just slapping a sticker on something that says "may contain GMOs".
At least in the US, there's an underlying sentiment of anti-intellectualism and "my opinion is just as valid as your knowledge", and a lot of people who just straight out don't trust scientists because of their own self-ignorance. This is why we have things spreading like creationism, anti-GMO activity, climate change debate, etc. If it were that easy, these things wouldn't exist. You can lead a horse to water....