A must see, if you haven't seen it, already.
* Warning: Language may be objectionable to some viewers! *
http://media.putfile.com/Penn--Teller-o ... d-Food-GMO
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
Penn & Teller on Genetically Modified Food.
A must see, if you haven't seen it, already.
* Warning: Language may be objectionable to some viewers! *
http://media.putfile.com/Penn--Teller-o ... d-Food-GMO
A must see, if you haven't seen it, already.
* Warning: Language may be objectionable to some viewers! *
http://media.putfile.com/Penn--Teller-o ... d-Food-GMO
Signature text removed at the request of a member.
Participate in The unOfficial Forum Garden Scavenger Hunt 2009!
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
great video!! :-6
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
Despite being a part of the health industry, I think this was a really important statement that they made. I listen to a lot of conspiracy theories all day from co-workers and, on this particular industry, I find the opposition to genetically manufactured food comes entirely from a luxury standpoint of having choices.
The organic spokesperson refers directly and solely to the amount of money made from organic farming, not the number of people fed by it.
The organic spokesperson refers directly and solely to the amount of money made from organic farming, not the number of people fed by it.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
When I clicked your link, G-man, my internet quit-twice-and I wan't able to view it. Not sure what made this happen?
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
watermark;887213 wrote: When I clicked your link, G-man, my internet quit-twice-and I wan't able to view it. Not sure what made this happen?
Well, it's essentially a short television show... I'd recommend clearing as much space as you can to allow it to run, especially if you have a slower connection or dial-up.
Well, it's essentially a short television show... I'd recommend clearing as much space as you can to allow it to run, especially if you have a slower connection or dial-up.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
koan;887207 wrote: Despite being a part of the health industry, I think this was a really important statement that they made. I listen to a lot of conspiracy theories all day from co-workers and, on this particular industry, I find the opposition to genetically manufactured food comes entirely from a luxury standpoint of having choices.
The organic spokesperson refers directly and solely to the amount of money made from organic farming, not the number of people fed by it.
Exactly. I'm a big consumer of healthy, organic and whole foods too, but... the entire organic industry seems to be about making money anymore... for example, just take a look at Whole Foods, the world's largest health food supermarket... they only locate stores in the wealthiest communities.
The organic spokesperson refers directly and solely to the amount of money made from organic farming, not the number of people fed by it.
Exactly. I'm a big consumer of healthy, organic and whole foods too, but... the entire organic industry seems to be about making money anymore... for example, just take a look at Whole Foods, the world's largest health food supermarket... they only locate stores in the wealthiest communities.
Signature text removed at the request of a member.
Participate in The unOfficial Forum Garden Scavenger Hunt 2009!
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
Bit more to the debate than that-is this the kind of simplistic bullshit that passes for discussion in the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/ ... enpolitics
Who makes GM crops?
Monsanto produces more than 90% of crops worldwide. Another four companies, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, Dow and Du Pont produce the rest. The fact that production lies in the hands of so few multinational corporations worries some who feel the companies will have too much control over world food production, can pressurise countries to buy their products and force more traditional farmers out of the market.
Monsanto made the mistake of threatening to pull out of the UK
Elsewhere in the world there is massive consumer resistance to this. Maybe you could do with some of that in the states since you are getting this stuff foisted on you whether you want it or not- so much for giving the consumer a choice by labelling the stuff and offering alternatives.
If all you can do is try and make a mockery of opponents you don't have a case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/ ... enpolitics
Who makes GM crops?
Monsanto produces more than 90% of crops worldwide. Another four companies, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, Dow and Du Pont produce the rest. The fact that production lies in the hands of so few multinational corporations worries some who feel the companies will have too much control over world food production, can pressurise countries to buy their products and force more traditional farmers out of the market.
Monsanto made the mistake of threatening to pull out of the UK
Elsewhere in the world there is massive consumer resistance to this. Maybe you could do with some of that in the states since you are getting this stuff foisted on you whether you want it or not- so much for giving the consumer a choice by labelling the stuff and offering alternatives.
If all you can do is try and make a mockery of opponents you don't have a case.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
Was it just me or did those raw food eaters look a little sick to you?
And I wonder if those Greenpeacers who don't trust the government take aspirin, ride public transportation or wonder what fumes they may be breathing in while wearing those masks.
I used to support Greenpeace but they got a little weird for me and I quit.
I think we would all freak out if we really knew what we were eating everyday, even those who eat raw foods, no meat or just vegetables.
And I wonder if those Greenpeacers who don't trust the government take aspirin, ride public transportation or wonder what fumes they may be breathing in while wearing those masks.
I used to support Greenpeace but they got a little weird for me and I quit.
I think we would all freak out if we really knew what we were eating everyday, even those who eat raw foods, no meat or just vegetables.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
911;890319 wrote: Was it just me or did those raw food eaters look a little sick to you?
And I wonder if those Greenpeacers who don't trust the government take aspirin, ride public transportation or wonder what fumes they may be breathing in while wearing those masks.
I used to support Greenpeace but they got a little weird for me and I quit.
I think we would all freak out if we really knew what we were eating everyday, even those who eat raw foods, no meat or just vegetables.
Why don't you know what you eat every day? Are not the pacjages labelled with the contents in the US?
It's one of the issues between the eu and the US in agricultural trade. The EU wants all GM crops clearly identified and the US keeps trying to say the eu is simply being protectionist. The simple reality is a lot of EU consumers will not buy gm foods if they know what it is. the opposition is consumer driven there was a massive boycott of it and it wasn't all about horror of frankenstein foods but also a wider concern for the environmental consequences and allowing a few companies to have so much control of the seed supply.
And I wonder if those Greenpeacers who don't trust the government take aspirin, ride public transportation or wonder what fumes they may be breathing in while wearing those masks.
I used to support Greenpeace but they got a little weird for me and I quit.
I think we would all freak out if we really knew what we were eating everyday, even those who eat raw foods, no meat or just vegetables.
Why don't you know what you eat every day? Are not the pacjages labelled with the contents in the US?
It's one of the issues between the eu and the US in agricultural trade. The EU wants all GM crops clearly identified and the US keeps trying to say the eu is simply being protectionist. The simple reality is a lot of EU consumers will not buy gm foods if they know what it is. the opposition is consumer driven there was a massive boycott of it and it wasn't all about horror of frankenstein foods but also a wider concern for the environmental consequences and allowing a few companies to have so much control of the seed supply.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
G-man;888057 wrote: Exactly. I'm a big consumer of healthy, organic and whole foods too, but... the entire organic industry seems to be about making money anymore... for example, just take a look at Whole Foods, the world's largest health food supermarket... they only locate stores in the wealthiest communities.
Wonder why that is............
I bet I know why...........
It just might be, because organics cost about 30-40% more than regular USDA approved foods and with the cost of food being about 20% of the average household budget the common man can not afford.........
ECONOMICS 101
Wonder why that is............
I bet I know why...........
It just might be, because organics cost about 30-40% more than regular USDA approved foods and with the cost of food being about 20% of the average household budget the common man can not afford.........
ECONOMICS 101
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
Organics are big business, nowadays... it seems like nearly everyone is fighting for a chunk of that market, and yes prices are inflated due to demand. Of course, for those that cannot afford it, some may still have the option of growing their own.
Obviously, you need space to do this, but you can grow a garden in pots on your balcony, as well. The organic seeds still are a bit more expensive than conventional seeds, but... in time for what you'd typically pay for one tomato, for example, you could grow hundreds by the end of the season. Even if you didn't purchase organic seeds, you'd still have a product that is likely better than you'd find in the supermarket, if you chose not to douse your garden with chemical fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides.
I don't believe for a moment, that anyone involved in producing genetically modified organisms are trying to cause harm to humans or the environment... when mistakes were made, they quickly retracted what was done and went back to the drawing board. Remember "Flavr-Savr" tomatoes from a few years back that were made to be resistant to antibiotics? There was much outcry from the medical community that saw this as a serious problem and they quickly recognised this and removed them from the market.
Obviously, you need space to do this, but you can grow a garden in pots on your balcony, as well. The organic seeds still are a bit more expensive than conventional seeds, but... in time for what you'd typically pay for one tomato, for example, you could grow hundreds by the end of the season. Even if you didn't purchase organic seeds, you'd still have a product that is likely better than you'd find in the supermarket, if you chose not to douse your garden with chemical fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides.
I don't believe for a moment, that anyone involved in producing genetically modified organisms are trying to cause harm to humans or the environment... when mistakes were made, they quickly retracted what was done and went back to the drawing board. Remember "Flavr-Savr" tomatoes from a few years back that were made to be resistant to antibiotics? There was much outcry from the medical community that saw this as a serious problem and they quickly recognised this and removed them from the market.
Signature text removed at the request of a member.
Participate in The unOfficial Forum Garden Scavenger Hunt 2009!
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
gmc;890448 wrote: Why don't you know what you eat every day? Are not the pacjages labelled with the contents in the US?
It's one of the issues between the eu and the US in agricultural trade. The EU wants all GM crops clearly identified and the US keeps trying to say the eu is simply being protectionist. The simple reality is a lot of EU consumers will not buy gm foods if they know what it is. the opposition is consumer driven there was a massive boycott of it and it wasn't all about horror of frankenstein foods but also a wider concern for the environmental consequences and allowing a few companies to have so much control of the seed supply.
Sure they are. It's just that when, for instance, you go to a restaurant and order scallops, you expect to get scallops. But what most people don't know is that what they are getting is shark meat, in some restaurants. And that's OK with the FDA. Most crab patties have just enough crab in them to pass.
There is no way to know who or what has handled your food before you get it. Raw veggies probably get handled several times before you ever get them. That's why they need to be washed before you eat them.
It seems to me that our food concerns have become a major problem here lately. If it's not China, it's our own farms. G-Man tickled the nail on the head in that post. Soon we will be growing our own food again just to keep from getting sick.
It's one of the issues between the eu and the US in agricultural trade. The EU wants all GM crops clearly identified and the US keeps trying to say the eu is simply being protectionist. The simple reality is a lot of EU consumers will not buy gm foods if they know what it is. the opposition is consumer driven there was a massive boycott of it and it wasn't all about horror of frankenstein foods but also a wider concern for the environmental consequences and allowing a few companies to have so much control of the seed supply.
Sure they are. It's just that when, for instance, you go to a restaurant and order scallops, you expect to get scallops. But what most people don't know is that what they are getting is shark meat, in some restaurants. And that's OK with the FDA. Most crab patties have just enough crab in them to pass.
There is no way to know who or what has handled your food before you get it. Raw veggies probably get handled several times before you ever get them. That's why they need to be washed before you eat them.
It seems to me that our food concerns have become a major problem here lately. If it's not China, it's our own farms. G-Man tickled the nail on the head in that post. Soon we will be growing our own food again just to keep from getting sick.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
gmc;890263 wrote:
If all you can do is try and make a mockery of opponents you don't have a case.
I have no problem with mockery when the only arguments against GMOs that I've seen are based on conspiracy theories.
I'm rather keen to debate the issue on legitimate facts.
If all you can do is try and make a mockery of opponents you don't have a case.
I have no problem with mockery when the only arguments against GMOs that I've seen are based on conspiracy theories.
I'm rather keen to debate the issue on legitimate facts.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
koan;892023 wrote: I have no problem with mockery when the only arguments against GMOs that I've seen are based on conspiracy theories.
I'm rather keen to debate the issue on legitimate facts.
I'm not a scientist but have a read of this as it covers some of the main points. Bear in mind in the UK and europe these geniuses thought it a good idea to feed sheep offal protein to vegetarian animals that's how we got BSE which incidentally you also have in Canada.
http://www.earthsave.org/newsletters/genfood2.htm
Actually, there is enough food in the world today for every person on the planet to get 3,600 calories a day, way more than enough. The problem is distribution, and genetic engineering won’t solve that. Instead, it will drive small farmers off their land and into poverty, making the distribution and hunger problems worse.
In a classic “localized irony, the two countries that lead the world in biotechnology also fare poorly in distributing wealth and food. A recent UNICEF report, Child Poverty in Rich Nations Report Card, released in June 2000, ranks Canada 17th among the 23 OECD countries, with 16% of its children living in poverty, and the USA second to last, with 22% of its children living in poverty. Both these countries with low people-to-land ratio have a sizable GMO emphasis in their agriculture.
There was a high profile case in Canada where Monsanto sued a farmer for illegally using their GM seeds, the farmers contention was that the GM crops on neighbouring farms had contaminated his crop-monsanto won bankrupting the farmer in the process. One criticism of GM crops is who owns the seeds-currently farmers can keep and use their own.
Biotech companies have developed ways of engineering plants so that the seeds they produce will not grow. Since the dawn of farming, farmers saved some of their seed to plant in the next season. When hybrid seeds were developed early in the 20th century, farmers had to go back to the seed companies each year to buy more seed, but there were some ways around this. With terminator technology, seed company control over the seed supply will be more complete.
The biotechnology industry has invested many billions of dollars in genetic engineering and they want to make back their investment. They also hope to control all the levels of food production, from seeds and fertilizers to food processing and supermarkets.
Not sure of the truth of that.
Since a court decision in 1980, it has been possible to patent genes and living organisms. A company that develops a new genetically engineered plant or animal will patent it. Then no one else is allowed to breed or grow it if they don’t buy it from that company. Farmers will be prohibited from saving seed and replanting it, and will have to sign contracts agreeing to buy new seed from the corporations each year
That is for real.
http://www.biotech-info.net/basmati_patent.html
Ruchi Tripathi said: 'The basmati patent exposes the mounting threat posed by multinationals to crops devel oped and grown by poor farmers for generations.'
There are currently more than 200 patents granted on rice, almost exclusively to US and Japanese companies.
It is currently not possible to patent staple foods and crops in Europe or developing countries but a European directive is about to change that in the EU. At World Trade Organisation talks which start tomorrow, rich nations are expected to put pressure on developing nations to allow the patenting of crops in their own countries. Tripathi said: 'If rich countries abuse their power to get their way in the World Trade Organisation, developing countries like India will lose the right to challenge patents on crops.'
How can you patent a plant and should we let them away with it?
I'm rather keen to debate the issue on legitimate facts.
I'm not a scientist but have a read of this as it covers some of the main points. Bear in mind in the UK and europe these geniuses thought it a good idea to feed sheep offal protein to vegetarian animals that's how we got BSE which incidentally you also have in Canada.
http://www.earthsave.org/newsletters/genfood2.htm
Actually, there is enough food in the world today for every person on the planet to get 3,600 calories a day, way more than enough. The problem is distribution, and genetic engineering won’t solve that. Instead, it will drive small farmers off their land and into poverty, making the distribution and hunger problems worse.
In a classic “localized irony, the two countries that lead the world in biotechnology also fare poorly in distributing wealth and food. A recent UNICEF report, Child Poverty in Rich Nations Report Card, released in June 2000, ranks Canada 17th among the 23 OECD countries, with 16% of its children living in poverty, and the USA second to last, with 22% of its children living in poverty. Both these countries with low people-to-land ratio have a sizable GMO emphasis in their agriculture.
There was a high profile case in Canada where Monsanto sued a farmer for illegally using their GM seeds, the farmers contention was that the GM crops on neighbouring farms had contaminated his crop-monsanto won bankrupting the farmer in the process. One criticism of GM crops is who owns the seeds-currently farmers can keep and use their own.
Biotech companies have developed ways of engineering plants so that the seeds they produce will not grow. Since the dawn of farming, farmers saved some of their seed to plant in the next season. When hybrid seeds were developed early in the 20th century, farmers had to go back to the seed companies each year to buy more seed, but there were some ways around this. With terminator technology, seed company control over the seed supply will be more complete.
The biotechnology industry has invested many billions of dollars in genetic engineering and they want to make back their investment. They also hope to control all the levels of food production, from seeds and fertilizers to food processing and supermarkets.
Not sure of the truth of that.
Since a court decision in 1980, it has been possible to patent genes and living organisms. A company that develops a new genetically engineered plant or animal will patent it. Then no one else is allowed to breed or grow it if they don’t buy it from that company. Farmers will be prohibited from saving seed and replanting it, and will have to sign contracts agreeing to buy new seed from the corporations each year
That is for real.
http://www.biotech-info.net/basmati_patent.html
Ruchi Tripathi said: 'The basmati patent exposes the mounting threat posed by multinationals to crops devel oped and grown by poor farmers for generations.'
There are currently more than 200 patents granted on rice, almost exclusively to US and Japanese companies.
It is currently not possible to patent staple foods and crops in Europe or developing countries but a European directive is about to change that in the EU. At World Trade Organisation talks which start tomorrow, rich nations are expected to put pressure on developing nations to allow the patenting of crops in their own countries. Tripathi said: 'If rich countries abuse their power to get their way in the World Trade Organisation, developing countries like India will lose the right to challenge patents on crops.'
How can you patent a plant and should we let them away with it?
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
gmc;892484 wrote: I'm not a scientist but have a read of this as it covers some of the main points. Bear in mind in the UK and europe these geniuses thought it a good idea to feed sheep offal protein to vegetarian animals that's how we got BSE which incidentally you also have in Canada.
http://www.earthsave.org/newsletters/genfood2.htm
Cattle is so toxic to me I rarely eat meat to avoid the antibiotics and hormones. The commercial meat industry is already history in my diet and I'm not convinced that any human either requires meat in their diet nor that it is efficient to eat meat.
The amount of grain that is used to feed the meat we harvest would feed so many more people were it used directly.
gmc wrote:
There was a high profile case in Canada where Monsanto sued a farmer for illegally using their GM seeds, the farmers contention was that the GM crops on neighbouring farms had contaminated his crop-monsanto won bankrupting the farmer in the process. One criticism of GM crops is who owns the seeds-currently farmers can keep and use their own.
Not sure of the truth of that.
Hard to say why the decision went the way it did. Sounds like the farmer tried to say that he didn't intentionally take the crop, that it just wandered over into his field :-2 I'd have to read more about it to have an informed opinion.
Since a court decision in 1980, it has been possible to patent genes and living organisms. A company that develops a new genetically engineered plant or animal will patent it. Then no one else is allowed to breed or grow it if they don’t buy it from that company. Farmers will be prohibited from saving seed and replanting it, and will have to sign contracts agreeing to buy new seed from the corporations each year
http://www.biotech-info.net/basmati_patent.html
gmc wrote:
How can you patent a plant and should we let them away with it?
Absolutely. Like any other patent, it expires. After expiration you get all the knock-off versions. It has to be that way. No one would invest in the research and development if they weren't given the time and space to recover their investment. If it was your money you'd agree.
http://www.earthsave.org/newsletters/genfood2.htm
Cattle is so toxic to me I rarely eat meat to avoid the antibiotics and hormones. The commercial meat industry is already history in my diet and I'm not convinced that any human either requires meat in their diet nor that it is efficient to eat meat.
The amount of grain that is used to feed the meat we harvest would feed so many more people were it used directly.
gmc wrote:
There was a high profile case in Canada where Monsanto sued a farmer for illegally using their GM seeds, the farmers contention was that the GM crops on neighbouring farms had contaminated his crop-monsanto won bankrupting the farmer in the process. One criticism of GM crops is who owns the seeds-currently farmers can keep and use their own.
Not sure of the truth of that.
Hard to say why the decision went the way it did. Sounds like the farmer tried to say that he didn't intentionally take the crop, that it just wandered over into his field :-2 I'd have to read more about it to have an informed opinion.
Since a court decision in 1980, it has been possible to patent genes and living organisms. A company that develops a new genetically engineered plant or animal will patent it. Then no one else is allowed to breed or grow it if they don’t buy it from that company. Farmers will be prohibited from saving seed and replanting it, and will have to sign contracts agreeing to buy new seed from the corporations each year
http://www.biotech-info.net/basmati_patent.html
gmc wrote:
How can you patent a plant and should we let them away with it?
Absolutely. Like any other patent, it expires. After expiration you get all the knock-off versions. It has to be that way. No one would invest in the research and development if they weren't given the time and space to recover their investment. If it was your money you'd agree.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
posted by koan
Absolutely. Like any other patent, it expires. After expiration you get all the knock-off versions. It has to be that way. No one would invest in the research and development if they weren't given the time and space to recover their investment. If it was your money you'd agree.
No way should we allow that just think of the consequences if farmers can't grow crops and plant seeds saved from the harvest like they have always done. We've managed so far without patents for basic foodstuffs- no one should be allowed to claim ownership of basic food crops and the right to sell them.
Absolutely. Like any other patent, it expires. After expiration you get all the knock-off versions. It has to be that way. No one would invest in the research and development if they weren't given the time and space to recover their investment. If it was your money you'd agree.
No way should we allow that just think of the consequences if farmers can't grow crops and plant seeds saved from the harvest like they have always done. We've managed so far without patents for basic foodstuffs- no one should be allowed to claim ownership of basic food crops and the right to sell them.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
gmc;892720 wrote:
No way should we allow that just think of the consequences if farmers can't grow crops and plant seeds saved from the harvest like they have always done. We've managed so far without patents for basic foodstuffs- no one should be allowed to claim ownership of basic food crops and the right to sell them.
The patent expires. The farmers would not be required to destroy all other seeds when a new one is developed. If they want to grow that seed then they pay for it. If they don't then they get another kind of seed.
The thing is: GM seeds are being produced that yield twice as much crop per plant. Some farmers might decide that it is worth buying the seed. Some won't.
No way should we allow that just think of the consequences if farmers can't grow crops and plant seeds saved from the harvest like they have always done. We've managed so far without patents for basic foodstuffs- no one should be allowed to claim ownership of basic food crops and the right to sell them.
The patent expires. The farmers would not be required to destroy all other seeds when a new one is developed. If they want to grow that seed then they pay for it. If they don't then they get another kind of seed.
The thing is: GM seeds are being produced that yield twice as much crop per plant. Some farmers might decide that it is worth buying the seed. Some won't.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
koan;892889 wrote: The patent expires. The farmers would not be required to destroy all other seeds when a new one is developed. If they want to grow that seed then they pay for it. If they don't then they get another kind of seed.
The thing is: GM seeds are being produced that yield twice as much crop per plant. Some farmers might decide that it is worth buying the seed. Some won't.
The thing is Biotech companies want to remove the choice not only for farmers but also consumers. It's not just the yoild it's the use of the chemicals as well.
You're kind of missing the point about all this it's not just about getting higher yielding crops and some luddites standing in the way of progress.
The effect on biodiversity is not a minor consideration. The use of pesticides and herbicides has had a catastrophic effect on the wildlife population here in the UK. The UK is a very small place you do notice a difference over the years and then the effect when some of the more disruptive chemicals were banned. Same with hormones used in cattle and chickens-having fish stocks become feminised as a result of these things getting in the water is enough to give anyone pause.
posted by Koan
Hard to say why the decision went the way it did. Sounds like the farmer tried to say that he didn't intentionally take the crop, that it just wandered over into his field I'd have to read more about it to have an informed opinion.
Of course it spreads naturally that's what plants do-they propagate-it's not as if he wandered in and pinched seeds.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
The thing is: GM seeds are being produced that yield twice as much crop per plant. Some farmers might decide that it is worth buying the seed. Some won't.
The thing is Biotech companies want to remove the choice not only for farmers but also consumers. It's not just the yoild it's the use of the chemicals as well.
You're kind of missing the point about all this it's not just about getting higher yielding crops and some luddites standing in the way of progress.
The effect on biodiversity is not a minor consideration. The use of pesticides and herbicides has had a catastrophic effect on the wildlife population here in the UK. The UK is a very small place you do notice a difference over the years and then the effect when some of the more disruptive chemicals were banned. Same with hormones used in cattle and chickens-having fish stocks become feminised as a result of these things getting in the water is enough to give anyone pause.
posted by Koan
Hard to say why the decision went the way it did. Sounds like the farmer tried to say that he didn't intentionally take the crop, that it just wandered over into his field I'd have to read more about it to have an informed opinion.
Of course it spreads naturally that's what plants do-they propagate-it's not as if he wandered in and pinched seeds.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
gmc;892933 wrote: The thing is Biotech companies want to remove the choice not only for farmers but also consumers.
That is pure conspiracy theory. Are you implying that biotech companies will someday convince governments to ban all non gmo seed?? As long as there is a market for natural, non gmo grain and organics then there will be non gmo and organics. They can only remove the choice if they make non-GMO crops illegal. I can't believe you mean to say that you predict that will happen.
It's not just the yoild it's the use of the chemicals as well.
Non GM crops use the same chemicals. This is an entirely separate issue. GM crops are actually bred to be insect resistant so they require less chemical.
You're kind of missing the point about all this it's not just about getting higher yielding crops and some luddites standing in the way of progress.
I'm not missing the point. I'm still looking for non paranoid, legitimate argument.
The effect on biodiversity is not a minor consideration. The use of pesticides and herbicides has had a catastrophic effect on the wildlife population here in the UK. The UK is a very small place you do notice a difference over the years and then the effect when some of the more disruptive chemicals were banned. Same with hormones used in cattle and chickens-having fish stocks become feminised as a result of these things getting in the water is enough to give anyone pause.
Humans destroy their environment. I'm not sure how to stop that. Of the many things that we do which destroy our environment, I recommend ceasing the activities that won't feed starving people. Focus. We produce a lot of toxic products. Why focus on eliminating the food products? At least the food production serves a good purpose. Lets go after the companies that make toxic products which serve no useful purpose to our species.
Of course it spreads naturally that's what plants do-they propagate-it's not as if he wandered in and pinched seeds.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
I read the information in that link and I can't say I find the farmer to be the sad victim he is supposed to represent.
Namely: He didn't give two whits about having and harvesting GM grain until he got sued by the manufacturer. Now, all of a sudden, he is giving anti-GMO lectures around the world or summat. He had over 300 hectares of GM grain on his property. He knew that he had it. He harvested it. The man was not anti-GMO until he was asked to pay for the grain.
That is pure conspiracy theory. Are you implying that biotech companies will someday convince governments to ban all non gmo seed?? As long as there is a market for natural, non gmo grain and organics then there will be non gmo and organics. They can only remove the choice if they make non-GMO crops illegal. I can't believe you mean to say that you predict that will happen.
It's not just the yoild it's the use of the chemicals as well.
Non GM crops use the same chemicals. This is an entirely separate issue. GM crops are actually bred to be insect resistant so they require less chemical.
You're kind of missing the point about all this it's not just about getting higher yielding crops and some luddites standing in the way of progress.
I'm not missing the point. I'm still looking for non paranoid, legitimate argument.
The effect on biodiversity is not a minor consideration. The use of pesticides and herbicides has had a catastrophic effect on the wildlife population here in the UK. The UK is a very small place you do notice a difference over the years and then the effect when some of the more disruptive chemicals were banned. Same with hormones used in cattle and chickens-having fish stocks become feminised as a result of these things getting in the water is enough to give anyone pause.
Humans destroy their environment. I'm not sure how to stop that. Of the many things that we do which destroy our environment, I recommend ceasing the activities that won't feed starving people. Focus. We produce a lot of toxic products. Why focus on eliminating the food products? At least the food production serves a good purpose. Lets go after the companies that make toxic products which serve no useful purpose to our species.
Of course it spreads naturally that's what plants do-they propagate-it's not as if he wandered in and pinched seeds.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
I read the information in that link and I can't say I find the farmer to be the sad victim he is supposed to represent.
Namely: He didn't give two whits about having and harvesting GM grain until he got sued by the manufacturer. Now, all of a sudden, he is giving anti-GMO lectures around the world or summat. He had over 300 hectares of GM grain on his property. He knew that he had it. He harvested it. The man was not anti-GMO until he was asked to pay for the grain.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
koan;893470 wrote: That is pure conspiracy theory. Are you implying that biotech companies will someday convince governments to ban all non gmo seed?? As long as there is a market for natural, non gmo grain and organics then there will be non gmo and organics. They can only remove the choice if they make non-GMO crops illegal. I can't believe you mean to say that you predict that will happen.
Non GM crops use the same chemicals. This is an entirely separate issue. GM crops are actually bred to be insect resistant so they require less chemical.
I'm not missing the point. I'm still looking for non paranoid, legitimate argument.
Humans destroy their environment. I'm not sure how to stop that. Of the many things that we do which destroy our environment, I recommend ceasing the activities that won't feed starving people. Focus. We produce a lot of toxic products. Why focus on eliminating the food products? At least the food production serves a good purpose. Lets go after the companies that make toxic products which serve no useful purpose to our species.
I read the information in that link and I can't say I find the farmer to be the sad victim he is supposed to represent.
Namely: He didn't give two whits about having and harvesting GM grain until he got sued by the manufacturer. Now, all of a sudden, he is giving anti-GMO lectures around the world or summat. He had over 300 hectares of GM grain on his property. He knew that he had it. He harvested it. The man was not anti-GMO until he was asked to pay for the grain.
Right now there is a requirement in the EU that all foodstuffs are labelled as to whether they contain GM crops or not. The biotech companies are trying to get round that because they know people boycott the stuff they realise it is there. the opposition is consumer led. Other countries like Japan have rejected american imports because of GM contamination. They also banned american and canadian beef imports because of concern about BSE. It gets portrtrayed as just being anti competitive practice but that is not the case.
Whether you like it or not people object not because they are ignorant and been taken in by tree hugging environmentalists but because they are extremely cynical and don't trust the companies. If you're gullible enough to believe that biotech companies are incapable of doing anything that would harm the environment then you are not as intelligent as I thought you were. Doing away with biodiversity in our crop types is not an intelligent thing to do. These GM crops propagate themselves-the idea that they wouldn't spread is ludicrous and once in there getting them out will be almost impossible.
Non GM crops use the same chemicals. This is an entirely separate issue. GM crops are actually bred to be insect resistant so they require less chemical.
That's one of the other objections to gm crops. No insects no birds and all the other things that feed on them. Our wild bird population has declined dramatically over the last two decades but seems to be recovering as farming practices change. You may think it doesn't matter or not even notice in the wide open spaces of north america but one of the reasons for the decline was the use of pesticides in the early nineties a whole swathe of them were banned in the EU. it's not a separate issue the two are related.
I'm not missing the point. I'm still looking for non paranoid, legitimate argument.
http://www.earthsave.org/newsletters/genfood2.htm
So deal with the legitimate concerns raised in the above.
1. Allergy or toxicity from new proteins in the food supply: Some of the genes used in genetic engineering were never in the food supply before. There is no way to know ahead of time whether some people may become allergic to the proteins that result.
2. Allergy or toxicity from new ways of processing proteins: Plants and animals “process proteins after they are produced by adding starch and other molecules that affect how the proteins function. Not all species do this in the same way. Different ways of processing proteins can lead to changes in function or changes in potential for allergy.
3. Allergy or toxicity or altered nutritional value from changing the way an organism functions: Genetic engineering can change the metabolism of a plant or animal. Proteins may be produced in increased quantities. Proteins that in small quantities were safe may now even exceed toxic levels. New proteins may be produced that were not produced before.
4. Antibiotic resistance genes may transfer into intestinal bacteria or other organisms and contribute to our growing public health problem of antibiotic-resistant organisms. Diseases that once could be treated by existing antibiotics may now become resistant to treatment.
Yes, for example: a) pesticide use may increase when pests develop resistance. b) Genes from crops resistant to herbicides may spread to weeds, and those weeds may become “superweeds that the herbicide can no longer control. c) Non-target insects may sicken or die from exposure to pesticide-resistant crops. d) Genetically engineered plants and animals may interbreed with wild relatives, spreading novel genes into wild populations. e) Genetically engineered plants may “out-compete, driving wild varieties to extinction. They may become “bio-invaders with a competitive advantage in an ecosystem that wasn’t designed to control them. f) Genetically engineered plants may alter soil bacteria in ways that are harmful to soil health.
Get away from this idea that anyone objecting to GM crops must by definition be irrational It's not paranoia to want to know what is in your food and how it is grown and to insist on having the final word. Concern about GMO is just part of a whole series of concerns about the effect farming practices have on the environment and what legacy biotech companies can leave us with if they get free rein.
posted by koan
I read the information in that link and I can't say I find the farmer to be the sad victim he is supposed to represent.
Namely: He didn't give two whits about having and harvesting GM grain until he got sued by the manufacturer. Now, all of a sudden, he is giving anti-GMO lectures around the world or summat. He had over 300 hectares of GM grain on his property. He knew that he had it. He harvested it. The man was not anti-GMO until he was asked to pay for the grain.
The case is an incidental-I only mebntioned it becaus you are canadian so i assumed you wold have heard of it- but monsantos contention was that he must have deliberately acquired the seeds- they insist the crops won't spread that far naturally.
The only conspiracy theory I believe in is the one that has you convinced opponents of GM believe in conspiracy theories.
Non GM crops use the same chemicals. This is an entirely separate issue. GM crops are actually bred to be insect resistant so they require less chemical.
I'm not missing the point. I'm still looking for non paranoid, legitimate argument.
Humans destroy their environment. I'm not sure how to stop that. Of the many things that we do which destroy our environment, I recommend ceasing the activities that won't feed starving people. Focus. We produce a lot of toxic products. Why focus on eliminating the food products? At least the food production serves a good purpose. Lets go after the companies that make toxic products which serve no useful purpose to our species.
I read the information in that link and I can't say I find the farmer to be the sad victim he is supposed to represent.
Namely: He didn't give two whits about having and harvesting GM grain until he got sued by the manufacturer. Now, all of a sudden, he is giving anti-GMO lectures around the world or summat. He had over 300 hectares of GM grain on his property. He knew that he had it. He harvested it. The man was not anti-GMO until he was asked to pay for the grain.
Right now there is a requirement in the EU that all foodstuffs are labelled as to whether they contain GM crops or not. The biotech companies are trying to get round that because they know people boycott the stuff they realise it is there. the opposition is consumer led. Other countries like Japan have rejected american imports because of GM contamination. They also banned american and canadian beef imports because of concern about BSE. It gets portrtrayed as just being anti competitive practice but that is not the case.
Whether you like it or not people object not because they are ignorant and been taken in by tree hugging environmentalists but because they are extremely cynical and don't trust the companies. If you're gullible enough to believe that biotech companies are incapable of doing anything that would harm the environment then you are not as intelligent as I thought you were. Doing away with biodiversity in our crop types is not an intelligent thing to do. These GM crops propagate themselves-the idea that they wouldn't spread is ludicrous and once in there getting them out will be almost impossible.
Non GM crops use the same chemicals. This is an entirely separate issue. GM crops are actually bred to be insect resistant so they require less chemical.
That's one of the other objections to gm crops. No insects no birds and all the other things that feed on them. Our wild bird population has declined dramatically over the last two decades but seems to be recovering as farming practices change. You may think it doesn't matter or not even notice in the wide open spaces of north america but one of the reasons for the decline was the use of pesticides in the early nineties a whole swathe of them were banned in the EU. it's not a separate issue the two are related.
I'm not missing the point. I'm still looking for non paranoid, legitimate argument.
http://www.earthsave.org/newsletters/genfood2.htm
So deal with the legitimate concerns raised in the above.
1. Allergy or toxicity from new proteins in the food supply: Some of the genes used in genetic engineering were never in the food supply before. There is no way to know ahead of time whether some people may become allergic to the proteins that result.
2. Allergy or toxicity from new ways of processing proteins: Plants and animals “process proteins after they are produced by adding starch and other molecules that affect how the proteins function. Not all species do this in the same way. Different ways of processing proteins can lead to changes in function or changes in potential for allergy.
3. Allergy or toxicity or altered nutritional value from changing the way an organism functions: Genetic engineering can change the metabolism of a plant or animal. Proteins may be produced in increased quantities. Proteins that in small quantities were safe may now even exceed toxic levels. New proteins may be produced that were not produced before.
4. Antibiotic resistance genes may transfer into intestinal bacteria or other organisms and contribute to our growing public health problem of antibiotic-resistant organisms. Diseases that once could be treated by existing antibiotics may now become resistant to treatment.
Yes, for example: a) pesticide use may increase when pests develop resistance. b) Genes from crops resistant to herbicides may spread to weeds, and those weeds may become “superweeds that the herbicide can no longer control. c) Non-target insects may sicken or die from exposure to pesticide-resistant crops. d) Genetically engineered plants and animals may interbreed with wild relatives, spreading novel genes into wild populations. e) Genetically engineered plants may “out-compete, driving wild varieties to extinction. They may become “bio-invaders with a competitive advantage in an ecosystem that wasn’t designed to control them. f) Genetically engineered plants may alter soil bacteria in ways that are harmful to soil health.
Get away from this idea that anyone objecting to GM crops must by definition be irrational It's not paranoia to want to know what is in your food and how it is grown and to insist on having the final word. Concern about GMO is just part of a whole series of concerns about the effect farming practices have on the environment and what legacy biotech companies can leave us with if they get free rein.
posted by koan
I read the information in that link and I can't say I find the farmer to be the sad victim he is supposed to represent.
Namely: He didn't give two whits about having and harvesting GM grain until he got sued by the manufacturer. Now, all of a sudden, he is giving anti-GMO lectures around the world or summat. He had over 300 hectares of GM grain on his property. He knew that he had it. He harvested it. The man was not anti-GMO until he was asked to pay for the grain.
The case is an incidental-I only mebntioned it becaus you are canadian so i assumed you wold have heard of it- but monsantos contention was that he must have deliberately acquired the seeds- they insist the crops won't spread that far naturally.
The only conspiracy theory I believe in is the one that has you convinced opponents of GM believe in conspiracy theories.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
gmc;894741 wrote: Right now there is a requirement in the EU that all foodstuffs are labelled as to whether they contain GM crops or not. The biotech companies are trying to get round that because they know people boycott the stuff they realise it is there. the opposition is consumer led. Other countries like Japan have rejected american imports because of GM contamination. They also banned american and canadian beef imports because of concern about BSE. It gets portrtrayed as just being anti competitive practice but that is not the case.
Whether you like it or not people object not because they are ignorant and been taken in by tree hugging environmentalists but because they are extremely cynical and don't trust the companies. If you're gullible enough to believe that biotech companies are incapable of doing anything that would harm the environment then you are not as intelligent as I thought you were. Doing away with biodiversity in our crop types is not an intelligent thing to do. These GM crops propagate themselves-the idea that they wouldn't spread is ludicrous and once in there getting them out will be almost impossible.
I've not implied they are ignorant, just that the multitude of reasons given to ban GMOs do not, in my mind constitute sufficient, legitimate cause to override the benefit. Have you seen the mountains of discarded cellphones? There are negative aspects to consumer demand and there are positive. As you said yourself in the above paragraphs, some people refuse to buy GMO crops. So why are you worried about regular crops ceasing to exist? It's not that I think biotech companies won't do things that harm people, I believe just about everything humans do harms people. I would rather allow a harmful activity to occur that also happens to feed billions of starving people and worry about the mountain of cell phones that are currently harming people. Like I've said: Focus.
There is no way of looking at our current world and thinking that we can restore it to normal functioning. We've screwed it up. Our species is not sustainable. We are like a virus and the host organism has been altered. We can not continue to exist on this planet without adapting to what we've already done to it. In this instance, one of the main, unalterable facts is that we've overpopulated it and we continue to overpopulate it. How many people do you know who had more than two kids? Why not lobby against them? How about dogs? How did we get miniature pinschers and why do dogs eat their own feces? (a behaviour that shows the species is not going to survive without human intervention... which is fine since we created them in the first place) There are so many examples of how we humans have defaced and defouled the world we live in. We're still here doing it too.
I'm interested in looking at both sides of every story. Here's a fairly impartially reporter trying to get to the truth behind the hype. BBC I recommend watching the videos on the page as well.
That's one of the other objections to gm crops. No insects no birds and all the other things that feed on them. Our wild bird population has declined dramatically over the last two decades but seems to be recovering as farming practices change. You may think it doesn't matter or not even notice in the wide open spaces of north america but one of the reasons for the decline was the use of pesticides in the early nineties a whole swathe of them were banned in the EU. it's not a separate issue the two are related.
And then other naturalists say that the insects will become immune to pesticides and they will turn into blights upon our crops. Pick a story. It's all just speculation and people are still starving to death every minute.
http://www.earthsave.org/newsletters/genfood2.htm
So deal with the legitimate concerns raised in the above.
From your link:
"Before genetic engineering, plants and animals could only share genes through reproduction within their own species."
Huh?
You're trying to convince me that interbreeding and hybridization doesn't exist without genetic engineering? Ever drink peppermint tea or see a mule? Hybrid (biology)- wikipedia
[snip]
The only conspiracy theory I believe in is the one that has you convinced opponents of GM believe in conspiracy theories.
This is, again, where you are wrong. I think I'm hearing conspiracy talk because I have been subjected to co-workers who get emails from the David Icke websites. I know conspiracy talk when I hear it.
Whether you like it or not people object not because they are ignorant and been taken in by tree hugging environmentalists but because they are extremely cynical and don't trust the companies. If you're gullible enough to believe that biotech companies are incapable of doing anything that would harm the environment then you are not as intelligent as I thought you were. Doing away with biodiversity in our crop types is not an intelligent thing to do. These GM crops propagate themselves-the idea that they wouldn't spread is ludicrous and once in there getting them out will be almost impossible.
I've not implied they are ignorant, just that the multitude of reasons given to ban GMOs do not, in my mind constitute sufficient, legitimate cause to override the benefit. Have you seen the mountains of discarded cellphones? There are negative aspects to consumer demand and there are positive. As you said yourself in the above paragraphs, some people refuse to buy GMO crops. So why are you worried about regular crops ceasing to exist? It's not that I think biotech companies won't do things that harm people, I believe just about everything humans do harms people. I would rather allow a harmful activity to occur that also happens to feed billions of starving people and worry about the mountain of cell phones that are currently harming people. Like I've said: Focus.
There is no way of looking at our current world and thinking that we can restore it to normal functioning. We've screwed it up. Our species is not sustainable. We are like a virus and the host organism has been altered. We can not continue to exist on this planet without adapting to what we've already done to it. In this instance, one of the main, unalterable facts is that we've overpopulated it and we continue to overpopulate it. How many people do you know who had more than two kids? Why not lobby against them? How about dogs? How did we get miniature pinschers and why do dogs eat their own feces? (a behaviour that shows the species is not going to survive without human intervention... which is fine since we created them in the first place) There are so many examples of how we humans have defaced and defouled the world we live in. We're still here doing it too.
I'm interested in looking at both sides of every story. Here's a fairly impartially reporter trying to get to the truth behind the hype. BBC I recommend watching the videos on the page as well.
That's one of the other objections to gm crops. No insects no birds and all the other things that feed on them. Our wild bird population has declined dramatically over the last two decades but seems to be recovering as farming practices change. You may think it doesn't matter or not even notice in the wide open spaces of north america but one of the reasons for the decline was the use of pesticides in the early nineties a whole swathe of them were banned in the EU. it's not a separate issue the two are related.
And then other naturalists say that the insects will become immune to pesticides and they will turn into blights upon our crops. Pick a story. It's all just speculation and people are still starving to death every minute.
http://www.earthsave.org/newsletters/genfood2.htm
So deal with the legitimate concerns raised in the above.
From your link:
"Before genetic engineering, plants and animals could only share genes through reproduction within their own species."
Huh?
You're trying to convince me that interbreeding and hybridization doesn't exist without genetic engineering? Ever drink peppermint tea or see a mule? Hybrid (biology)- wikipedia
[snip]
The only conspiracy theory I believe in is the one that has you convinced opponents of GM believe in conspiracy theories.
This is, again, where you are wrong. I think I'm hearing conspiracy talk because I have been subjected to co-workers who get emails from the David Icke websites. I know conspiracy talk when I hear it.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
koan;898949 wrote: I've not implied they are ignorant, just that the multitude of reasons given to ban GMOs do not, in my mind constitute sufficient, legitimate cause to override the benefit. Have you seen the mountains of discarded cellphones? There are negative aspects to consumer demand and there are positive. As you said yourself in the above paragraphs, some people refuse to buy GMO crops. So why are you worried about regular crops ceasing to exist? It's not that I think biotech companies won't do things that harm people, I believe just about everything humans do harms people. I would rather allow a harmful activity to occur that also happens to feed billions of starving people and worry about the mountain of cell phones that are currently harming people. Like I've said: Focus.
There is no way of looking at our current world and thinking that we can restore it to normal functioning. We've screwed it up. Our species is not sustainable. We are like a virus and the host organism has been altered. We can not continue to exist on this planet without adapting to what we've already done to it. In this instance, one of the main, unalterable facts is that we've overpopulated it and we continue to overpopulate it. How many people do you know who had more than two kids? Why not lobby against them? How about dogs? How did we get miniature pinschers and why do dogs eat their own feces? (a behaviour that shows the species is not going to survive without human intervention... which is fine since we created them in the first place) There are so many examples of how we humans have defaced and defouled the world we live in. We're still here doing it too.
I'm interested in looking at both sides of every story. Here's a fairly impartially reporter trying to get to the truth behind the hype. BBC I recommend watching the videos on the page as well.
And then other naturalists say that the insects will become immune to pesticides and they will turn into blights upon our crops. Pick a story. It's all just speculation and people are still starving to death every minute.
From your link:
"Before genetic engineering, plants and animals could only share genes through reproduction within their own species."
Huh?
You're trying to convince me that interbreeding and hybridization doesn't exist without genetic engineering? Ever drink peppermint tea or see a mule? Hybrid (biology)- wikipedia
This is, again, where you are wrong. I think I'm hearing conspiracy talk because I have been subjected to co-workers who get emails from the David Icke websites. I know conspiracy talk when I hear it.
II'm not trying to convince you of anything-make up your own mind.
[QUOTE]I have no problem with mockery when the only arguments against GMOs that I've seen are based on conspiracy theories.
I'm rather keen to debate the issue on legitimate facts.
All I'm doing is presenting a series of facts for you to consider. You are the one that seems convinced the opposition is based on a conspiracy theory. Leaving aside the nutters that see conspiracy in everything there is real cause for concern, not only about the GMO's themselves but also the way agribusiness operates. some of which I have pointed out to you.
from your link
In the US, I found that for some farmers the problem is not so much a distrust of GM technology, but rather the way, they say, it makes them fall under the complete control of the biotech giants.
On his farm in Missouri I met Roger Parry. An old school good ol' boy, complete with battered old pick-up truck and equally battered baseball hat.
He is one of the minority of US farmers resisting GM. He told me that the big business of biotech is making it tough for farmers to make their own decisions about what to grow. Almost all of the seed available is GM seed.
"I think that if farmers had real choices out here, that they would do things differently. When it's time to plant, farmers are going to plant.
"If all you've got is genetically modified soybeans, and it's time for seed to go in the ground, that's what's going to go in the ground.
"So, it's the availability of supply, and if that's cut off, it's awful tough to go shopping around when the sun is shining and you've got a few days to get your seed in the ground," Mr Parry says.
So much for farmers having a free choice in the matter. A monopoly of supply in agriculture is still a monopoly and as such any good capitalist country like the US is supposed to be should be up in arms about it
I get the feeling that most people in Britain instinctively distrust "industrialised agriculture".
Too true we do. The UK is a small island we can see and have seen the the consequences of farming practices.
And behind it all (or almost all of it) is the giant Monsanto corporation. A multi-billion dollar world-wide outfit that dominates the world of GM.
As a journalist, getting access to what the green lobby regards as the "heart of darkness" is not easy.
Now there's a thing. What's the big secret? Why not give journalists free rein? This is too important to leave to a few companies to set the pace and the standards. If they can't accept people have a right to be concerned and to oppose then tough- but companies should not ever be given free rein to do what they want. we live in a free country part of that means that any company's activity is going to be subject to scrutiny-especially when it affects us all.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/
Despite international scientific concern, the United States and Canadavii continue to allow growth promoting hormones in cattle.viii The European Union, however, does not allow the use of hormones in cattle production, has prohibited the import of hormone-treated beef since 1988, and has banned all beef imports from the US. The ban has been challenged by the US at the World Trade Organization and debate still rages between the US and the EU over its validity.ix
Maybe it's just that european consumers are a bit more aware of these things or lless inclined to accept being told what to do and what they should have to accept or we are just generally a lot less trusting of our governments and corporations as a matter of course.
There is no way of looking at our current world and thinking that we can restore it to normal functioning. We've screwed it up. Our species is not sustainable. We are like a virus and the host organism has been altered. We can not continue to exist on this planet without adapting to what we've already done to it. In this instance, one of the main, unalterable facts is that we've overpopulated it and we continue to overpopulate it. How many people do you know who had more than two kids? Why not lobby against them? How about dogs? How did we get miniature pinschers and why do dogs eat their own feces? (a behaviour that shows the species is not going to survive without human intervention... which is fine since we created them in the first place) There are so many examples of how we humans have defaced and defouled the world we live in. We're still here doing it too.
I'm interested in looking at both sides of every story. Here's a fairly impartially reporter trying to get to the truth behind the hype. BBC I recommend watching the videos on the page as well.
And then other naturalists say that the insects will become immune to pesticides and they will turn into blights upon our crops. Pick a story. It's all just speculation and people are still starving to death every minute.
From your link:
"Before genetic engineering, plants and animals could only share genes through reproduction within their own species."
Huh?
You're trying to convince me that interbreeding and hybridization doesn't exist without genetic engineering? Ever drink peppermint tea or see a mule? Hybrid (biology)- wikipedia
This is, again, where you are wrong. I think I'm hearing conspiracy talk because I have been subjected to co-workers who get emails from the David Icke websites. I know conspiracy talk when I hear it.
II'm not trying to convince you of anything-make up your own mind.
[QUOTE]I have no problem with mockery when the only arguments against GMOs that I've seen are based on conspiracy theories.
I'm rather keen to debate the issue on legitimate facts.
All I'm doing is presenting a series of facts for you to consider. You are the one that seems convinced the opposition is based on a conspiracy theory. Leaving aside the nutters that see conspiracy in everything there is real cause for concern, not only about the GMO's themselves but also the way agribusiness operates. some of which I have pointed out to you.
from your link
In the US, I found that for some farmers the problem is not so much a distrust of GM technology, but rather the way, they say, it makes them fall under the complete control of the biotech giants.
On his farm in Missouri I met Roger Parry. An old school good ol' boy, complete with battered old pick-up truck and equally battered baseball hat.
He is one of the minority of US farmers resisting GM. He told me that the big business of biotech is making it tough for farmers to make their own decisions about what to grow. Almost all of the seed available is GM seed.
"I think that if farmers had real choices out here, that they would do things differently. When it's time to plant, farmers are going to plant.
"If all you've got is genetically modified soybeans, and it's time for seed to go in the ground, that's what's going to go in the ground.
"So, it's the availability of supply, and if that's cut off, it's awful tough to go shopping around when the sun is shining and you've got a few days to get your seed in the ground," Mr Parry says.
So much for farmers having a free choice in the matter. A monopoly of supply in agriculture is still a monopoly and as such any good capitalist country like the US is supposed to be should be up in arms about it
I get the feeling that most people in Britain instinctively distrust "industrialised agriculture".
Too true we do. The UK is a small island we can see and have seen the the consequences of farming practices.
And behind it all (or almost all of it) is the giant Monsanto corporation. A multi-billion dollar world-wide outfit that dominates the world of GM.
As a journalist, getting access to what the green lobby regards as the "heart of darkness" is not easy.
Now there's a thing. What's the big secret? Why not give journalists free rein? This is too important to leave to a few companies to set the pace and the standards. If they can't accept people have a right to be concerned and to oppose then tough- but companies should not ever be given free rein to do what they want. we live in a free country part of that means that any company's activity is going to be subject to scrutiny-especially when it affects us all.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/
Despite international scientific concern, the United States and Canadavii continue to allow growth promoting hormones in cattle.viii The European Union, however, does not allow the use of hormones in cattle production, has prohibited the import of hormone-treated beef since 1988, and has banned all beef imports from the US. The ban has been challenged by the US at the World Trade Organization and debate still rages between the US and the EU over its validity.ix
Maybe it's just that european consumers are a bit more aware of these things or lless inclined to accept being told what to do and what they should have to accept or we are just generally a lot less trusting of our governments and corporations as a matter of course.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
Here's the thing, gmc... I put that story link on the thread because he seems to be looking at the issue fairly, seeing both sides. You've taken out the small bits that presented a negative side and ignored the larger bits that say that even the farmers want to grow GM crops. The bits about how none of the negative effects predicted have manifested in North America despite the huge growth in the GM industry and, if you watched it, the British man who goes on about how many problems are being solved by GM crop farming and that it's foolish the UK is missing out.
So, I've looked at an article that presents two sides to the argument in an unbiased way. He makes no outright false statements such as "Before genetic engineering, plants and animals could only share genes through reproduction within their own species." When you send me to a site that makes a bluntly false statement at the start of their presentation I am not going to continue reading it. I assess it as a site full of improperly researched data.
You say "I'm not trying to convince you of anything-make up your own mind." In response to my showing you proof that your site has faulty data. Hybrids have been cultivated and do exist prior to genetics. Entire species have been created without the world falling into a pit of chaos. Make up my mind about what? The facts are in. You're site has faulty information.
That one error... and there may be more, I just stopped trusting the source at this point... That one error makes them useless as a reliable source. I like my facts uncorrupted.
So, I've looked at an article that presents two sides to the argument in an unbiased way. He makes no outright false statements such as "Before genetic engineering, plants and animals could only share genes through reproduction within their own species." When you send me to a site that makes a bluntly false statement at the start of their presentation I am not going to continue reading it. I assess it as a site full of improperly researched data.
You say "I'm not trying to convince you of anything-make up your own mind." In response to my showing you proof that your site has faulty data. Hybrids have been cultivated and do exist prior to genetics. Entire species have been created without the world falling into a pit of chaos. Make up my mind about what? The facts are in. You're site has faulty information.
That one error... and there may be more, I just stopped trusting the source at this point... That one error makes them useless as a reliable source. I like my facts uncorrupted.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
The only thing I'm left wondering is whether or not the people writing these anti-GMO sites really believe they are scientifically knowledgeable and correct or whether they know they're sitting there with half an understanding and spouting off literature.
I'm actually giving them the benefit of the doubt and believing that they think they know their stuff. I'd just like to suggest to them that they up the stakes if they truly believe the world is in danger. Get a scientific proof reader or take the time to proof read their facts with a few (up to date) textbooks in hand. The other option is that they just want a cause to fight for and don't really care about reality.
I'm actually giving them the benefit of the doubt and believing that they think they know their stuff. I'd just like to suggest to them that they up the stakes if they truly believe the world is in danger. Get a scientific proof reader or take the time to proof read their facts with a few (up to date) textbooks in hand. The other option is that they just want a cause to fight for and don't really care about reality.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
koan;899259 wrote: Here's the thing, gmc... I put that story link on the thread because he seems to be looking at the issue fairly, seeing both sides. You've taken out the small bits that presented a negative side and ignored the larger bits that say that even the farmers want to grow GM crops. The bits about how none of the negative effects predicted have manifested in North America despite the huge growth in the GM industry and, if you watched it, the British man who goes on about how many problems are being solved by GM crop farming and that it's foolish the UK is missing out.
So, I've looked at an article that presents two sides to the argument in an unbiased way. He makes no outright false statements such as "Before genetic engineering, plants and animals could only share genes through reproduction within their own species." When you send me to a site that makes a bluntly false statement at the start of their presentation I am not going to continue reading it. I assess it as a site full of improperly researched data.
You say "I'm not trying to convince you of anything-make up your own mind." In response to my showing you proof that your site has faulty data. Hybrids have been cultivated and do exist prior to genetics. Entire species have been created without the world falling into a pit of chaos. Make up my mind about what? The facts are in. You're site has faulty information.
That one error... and there may be more, I just stopped trusting the source at this point... That one error makes them useless as a reliable source. I like my facts uncorrupted.
I did look at the bbc site it's been a major debate here for some time now. Monsanto lost the argument. Hopefully it will continue to do so. It's not just about gmo but also the way companies like monsanto operate to dominate the market. Biggest mistake they made was to be patronising about it. Trust me I'm a scientist just doesn't hack it. Most people are bright enough to look at the evidence and make up their own mind what they think. We've had enough real problems caused by insecticides and herbicides that scientists assured us were perfectly safe to be wary of making the same mistake. Bear in mind the damage wasn't immediately obvious.
The only thing I'm left wondering is whether or not the people writing these anti-GMO sites really believe they are scientifically knowledgeable and correct or whether they know they're sitting there with half an understanding and spouting off literature.
It doesn't really matter since you can cross reference what they are saying with as many sources as you like. But having looked at the evidence you need to make up your own mind and decide whether you want GMO or not and the baggage that goes with it. Except being in North America the decision has already been made for you.
So, I've looked at an article that presents two sides to the argument in an unbiased way. He makes no outright false statements such as "Before genetic engineering, plants and animals could only share genes through reproduction within their own species." When you send me to a site that makes a bluntly false statement at the start of their presentation I am not going to continue reading it. I assess it as a site full of improperly researched data.
You say "I'm not trying to convince you of anything-make up your own mind." In response to my showing you proof that your site has faulty data. Hybrids have been cultivated and do exist prior to genetics. Entire species have been created without the world falling into a pit of chaos. Make up my mind about what? The facts are in. You're site has faulty information.
That one error... and there may be more, I just stopped trusting the source at this point... That one error makes them useless as a reliable source. I like my facts uncorrupted.
I did look at the bbc site it's been a major debate here for some time now. Monsanto lost the argument. Hopefully it will continue to do so. It's not just about gmo but also the way companies like monsanto operate to dominate the market. Biggest mistake they made was to be patronising about it. Trust me I'm a scientist just doesn't hack it. Most people are bright enough to look at the evidence and make up their own mind what they think. We've had enough real problems caused by insecticides and herbicides that scientists assured us were perfectly safe to be wary of making the same mistake. Bear in mind the damage wasn't immediately obvious.
The only thing I'm left wondering is whether or not the people writing these anti-GMO sites really believe they are scientifically knowledgeable and correct or whether they know they're sitting there with half an understanding and spouting off literature.
It doesn't really matter since you can cross reference what they are saying with as many sources as you like. But having looked at the evidence you need to make up your own mind and decide whether you want GMO or not and the baggage that goes with it. Except being in North America the decision has already been made for you.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
I'm assuming that's your closing argument. We've given folks a few points to think about and a couple of links to follow.
The only thing left to add is that it's nice for us that we can sit here with full bellies and ponder how we feel about GMOs while others are starving and without access to the internet.
The only thing left to add is that it's nice for us that we can sit here with full bellies and ponder how we feel about GMOs while others are starving and without access to the internet.
Penn Teller on Genetically Modified Food
koan;904149 wrote: I'm assuming that's your closing argument. We've given folks a few points to think about and a couple of links to follow.
The only thing left to add is that it's nice for us that we can sit here with full bellies and ponder how we feel about GMOs while others are starving and without access to the internet.
If only it were that simple. that kind of petty crack blithely ignores the very real concerns about GMO and all that goes along with it. In North america the debate is ended you have no choice in the matter. Maybe the neortic europeans will have the last laugh.
Have a look at the causes of the upcoming world shortage of bananas for a case study in why monoculture imposed by big corporations is a bad idea.
Currently bees are dying off for reasons no on has been able to work out yet. Anecdotally one theory it is a cumulative effect of years of herbicide and pesticide use which is either hysteria or a valid concern depending on whose side of the debate you are on. Although it does seem to be a virus to blame. That is serious enough to have farmers very worried. No insects no pollination no food. If they can't find a cause and cure GMO crops will be the least of your worries.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 113425.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 062708.php
The only thing left to add is that it's nice for us that we can sit here with full bellies and ponder how we feel about GMOs while others are starving and without access to the internet.
If only it were that simple. that kind of petty crack blithely ignores the very real concerns about GMO and all that goes along with it. In North america the debate is ended you have no choice in the matter. Maybe the neortic europeans will have the last laugh.
Have a look at the causes of the upcoming world shortage of bananas for a case study in why monoculture imposed by big corporations is a bad idea.
Currently bees are dying off for reasons no on has been able to work out yet. Anecdotally one theory it is a cumulative effect of years of herbicide and pesticide use which is either hysteria or a valid concern depending on whose side of the debate you are on. Although it does seem to be a virus to blame. That is serious enough to have farmers very worried. No insects no pollination no food. If they can't find a cause and cure GMO crops will be the least of your worries.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 113425.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 062708.php