View Full Version : GMO's are still gaining ground (where ? in the US, of course)
Transgenic vegetables, THE generalized time bomb set up to go off at some time later (I just hope I won't be there any more to see this) showing no one should ever have eaten any of that stuff. And now ?
Animals.
Yes guys.
Salmons. :o
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/business/26salmon.html
http://www.relfe.com/GMOs.html
Just got to hear about that at TV today.
The article from the NY Times is not really new. What I got to hear today is that you'll find that kind of thing in your shops in 2 years.
I can't pretend to know whether people react another way to some news depending on where they live... But if I may, I would ask you how much time do you guys still need to see that a few of your multinational companies (monsanto and the like) are screwing you, your children and the whole world in the ***. :o
Basically, what do you think of this matter ? :hmm2:
(Yet I got to know how much we Europeans worry about that, I still don't know what the American :hmm2: public opinion thinks of this matter. Actually, anyone living in the US going shopping for vegetables no more can get anything else than transgenic ones. Even just that simple fact gets me thinking why I've still not seen some of your politics hung from the hand of the statue of Liberty with their own innards, for allowing such a thing to happen)
I don't care in the least.
Skybird
09-21-10, 05:29 PM
I don't care in the least.
Possible, or better: likely that that will change in the future. Only that it will be too late then.
Too much absue in the business, and too much criminal energy at work there. Some corporations busiy in this field are acting so much in viollation of mlaws and are so manipulative in their policies that I rate them as institutions of organised crime. It's a mafia.
antikristuseke
09-21-10, 05:37 PM
I am with tater here, couldn't care less.
SteamWake
09-21-10, 05:40 PM
Read a news story today about how supermarkets were planning to set aside a section for genetically engineered foods.
Thats fine with me let the folks make a choice, but frankly I would assume that 9 out of 10 pepole would perferr a non engineered food given a choice.
Ducimus
09-21-10, 05:46 PM
I don't like the risk they present to natural species.
I don't mind trying them to eat so long as they are proven to be safe, but......
i'd also like to have it set aside as a clear choice, and not mixed with naturaly grown food.
Aside from that... don't care. Just make it optional, and don't screw with the local ecosystems and I'm fine with it.
edit:
THey'd also have to take steps to ensure none of those franksteins ever made it into the wild. For example, the frankinfish farms should be located WELL inland in some flyover state where it has zero chance of making it into the wild.
Sammi79
09-21-10, 05:51 PM
Genetic modification of various life forms has been going on for thousands of years. Carefull selective breeding can improve or expel traits deemed desirable or otherwise and is totally an ancient form of GM. Scientists are merely taking shortcuts by physically manipulating genes in embryonic life forms, to achieve results that would perhaps take 100 or so years of breeding, or sometimes to achieve modifications that would be otherwise impossible. It remains to be seen what the implications and long term effects of this pratice will inevitably produce. I personally harbour no rational fears toward GM for as with breeding, an offspring with a dangerous mutation will 99.9^% die before achieving reproductive ability. Our scientists are not trying to create poisonous foodstuffs.
There is still a myth that should be dispelled that modified creatures can somehow infect unmodified creatures, this is simply impossible. Your genes are your genes and eating things does not modify them. A real risk is that we create a modified organism that has so many advantages over its natural counterparts that it dominates their place it the natural order, and the original creature becomes extinct, however this modified creature, is better than the original, in terms of survivability and procreation and so forth and would have probably occured naturally given enough time.
Genetic modification of human embryos on the other hand, poses huge moral complications and should not be attempted for any other reason apart from maybe just possibly to correct an obviously fatal flaw, if ever at all.
SteamWake
09-21-10, 06:08 PM
zero chance of making it into the wild.
LOL zero chance... hey were talking about human beings running things here :har: Probably worse yet the goverment will be involved somehow. :o
SteamWake
09-21-10, 06:10 PM
Genetic modification of various life forms has been going on for thousands of years.
Theres a reason they call it 'natural' selection.
Sammi79
09-21-10, 06:17 PM
Theres a reason they call it 'natural' selection.
Yes, there is, but being bred selectively by humans is not equivalent to it.
Yes, there is, but being bred selectively by humans is not equivalent to it.
No, that's "un-natural" selection. :)
Sammi79
09-21-10, 06:21 PM
No, that's "un-natural" selection. :)
or maybe just... selection? :D
@ Tater & Antiwhatever : remember that you buy new illnesses never seen before every time you go shopping for food. Some people are magnanimous enough not to care about that (or is it silly ? with all due respect) ... Most people, certainly. But I must say I can't avoid feeling discontent seeing how American people are spreading their virus all over the world - without even wishing to do so - via some of their biggest companies just by proving how much people can be narcissistic and care about themselves only.
@ Skybird : Was thinking I was the only one seeing the world that way, LOL.
@ Ducimus : Where there's transgenic stuff ? It spreads. More, and more, and more. You can't stop it. It spreads so much that natural species are now bound to disappear. Yes Sir.
Just google that biggest reservation refrigerator ever built in Spitzberg, Norway, sponsored by Bill Gates himself. Designed to preserve natural species only. If GMO didn't spread, that thing would not exist today.
@ Sammi : Well, I harbour at least one rational fear towards genetically modified food.
And I apologize in advance if my english is still too rough to explain it another way.
But legally, any kind of food must be "tested"/eaten for 2 years by a group of people, thus showing properly whether this food is fit for consumption, before being allowed to be sold in shops. GMF (vegetables AFAIK) have been "tested" for 4 months. Period.
To quote a wise man, now the question is "can we undo what we have done, before we undo what we become"...
Skybird
09-21-10, 06:35 PM
I don't like the risk they present to natural species.
I don't mind trying them to eat so long as they are proven to be safe, but......
i'd also like to have it set aside as a clear choice, and not mixed with naturaly grown food.
Aside from that... don't care. Just make it optional, and don't screw with the local ecosystems and I'm fine with it.
edit:
THey'd also have to take steps to ensure none of those franksteins ever made it into the wild. For example, the frankinfish farms should be located WELL inland in some flyover state where it has zero chance of making it into the wild.
It is illusoiry to assume that you can keep natural populations free from seeds with chnaged genes. Even more so when copnsideirng that certain corproations release genetic sample intentionally in order to confront poltiics with new realities. Monsanto even dares to sue farmers in South America that have resisted to buying their genetically modified seeds, when the wind or water have transported such seeds onto "clean fields", Monsanto maintains a whole army of field detectives to detect such infestations and then sue the farmers over - violation of patent rights, and the like. That is criminal behavior. Monsanto also repeatedly let escape - unintentionally of course, we believe everything they say, don'T we - samples of genetically changed crop in Germany after the authorities prhibited them to do it and rejected thair request to be allowed to bring these seeds out in nature. They are gangsters, knowing that once the genie was out of the bottle you cannot get it back into it, that way they hope to make the policy making the laws that they want, becaseu policy-makers then can only react to the aleady altered reality.
You cannot control geneticall chnaged material once it has left the test tube and came into contact with a natural habitat. It will spread, wether you like it or not. It does not matter whether you separate two fields by ten m eters of a thiusand kilometers. Wind, rain, birds, gelogical movement, and more - it all makes sure that the modified seeds will niot stay just on that field where you have brought them out.
That's why I would want to see certain Monsanto managers serving a lifetime sentence in prison.
Norman Borlaug disagrees.
Given your opinion vs his... I'll take his :)
antikristuseke
09-21-10, 06:40 PM
Read a news story today about how supermarkets were planning to set aside a section for genetically engineered foods.
Thats fine with me let the folks make a choice, but frankly I would assume that 9 out of 10 pepole would perferr a non engineered food given a choice.
Selective breeding of livestock and plants is engineering it. Though there the process is via genetic mutation and unnatural selection, doing the modifications on the genetic level directly just saves time.
Sammi79
09-21-10, 06:42 PM
@ Sammi : Well, I harbour at least one rational fear towards genetically modified food.
And I apologize in advance if my english is still too rough to explain it another way.
But legally, any kind of food must be "tested"/eaten for 2 years by a group of people, thus showing properly whether this food is fit for consumption, before being allowed to be sold in shops. GMF (vegetables AFAIK) have been "tested" for 4 months. Period.
To quote a wise man, now the question is "can we undo what we have done, before we undo what we become"...
Yes that is a valid concern, the rules should be followed in this instance. The trouble is, who decides the rules? and on what grounds? I harbour no fears yet I agree that there should be stringent and enforced rules regarding testing. Unfortunately the people who make the rules do so with a capitalistic and profiteering approach, and therein lies its possible downfall.
What has been done cannot be undone. What we have become? we are still and perhaps will be forever becoming.
It is illusoiry to assume that you can keep natural populations free from seeds with chnaged genes. Even more so when copnsideirng that certain corproations release genetic sample intentionally in order to confront poltiics with new realities. Monsanto even dares to sue farmers in South America that have resisted to buying their genetically modified seeds, when the wind or water have transported such seeds onto "clean fields", Monsanto maintains a whole army of field detectives to detect such infestations and then sue the farmers over - violation of patent rights, and the like. That is criminal behavior. Monsanto also repeatedly let escape - unintentionally of course, we believe everything they say, don'T we - samples of genetically changed crop in Germany after the authorities prhibited them to do it and rejected thair request to be allowed to bring these seeds out in nature. They are gangsters, knowing that once the genie was out of the bottle you cannot get it back into it, that way they hope to make the policy making the laws that they want, becaseu policy-makers then can only react to the aleady altered reality.
You cannot control geneticall chnaged material once it has left the test tube and came into contact with a natural habitat. It will spread, wether you like it or not. It does not matter whether you separate two fields by ten m eters of a thiusand kilometers. Wind, rain, birds, gelogical movement, and more - it all makes sure that the modified seeds will niot stay just on that field where you have brought them out.
That's why I would want to see certain Monsanto managers serving a lifetime sentence in prison.
And THAT SINGLE post makes me send you a friend request, Sir.
Sammi79
09-21-10, 06:57 PM
You cannot control geneticall chnaged material once it has left the test tube and came into contact with a natural habitat. It will spread, wether you like it or not. It does not matter whether you separate two fields by ten m eters of a thiusand kilometers. Wind, rain, birds, gelogical movement, and more - it all makes sure that the modified seeds will niot stay just on that field where you have brought them out.
Absoulutely true, however, if the organism is better at a) survival, b) procreation, and c) feeding us, then where is the problem? surely these desirable qualities are still desirable regardless of wether we bred, engineered or it just occured naturally. In fact no form of life that human beings use for our benefit remains genetically untouched or unchanged from the 'natural' variety. Most are so far removed that there is no possibility of interbreeding, especially plants.
frau kaleun
09-21-10, 07:05 PM
LOL zero chance... hey were talking about human beings running things here :har: Probably worse yet the goverment will be involved somehow. :o
I thought the same thing. :haha:
"...zero chance of making it into the wild..."
Isn't that what the soon-to-be-dead guy in the lab coat says in movies just before the completely unforeseen and unpredictable event that releases the results of his experiment out into the world at large where havoc is inevitably wrought? :O:
Ducimus
09-21-10, 07:23 PM
Truth be told, i did wince a little when i said that, cause deep down, i know better. I was just trying to be open minded. :rotfl2:
As that kind of open-mindedness is poisoning the whole world, I admit I didn't find it really funny.
IMHO, that is.
Sammi79
09-21-10, 08:07 PM
If we are ever going to form a reasonable set of rules/guidelines regarding this subject then we must explore and find out, otherwise it remains another unknown, left to speculation and scripture. We have acquired the knowledge to implement such changes, through scientific research, intelligent minds pushing themselves toward the boundaries. Are we not ourselves natural? Is our knowledge not worthy? Curiosity killed the cat indeed. But I am not a cat (much as I might wish this were not the case ) and I think, curiosity must be satisfied.
I have read and reread many sci-fi tales of the woes encountered by humans as they embark upon their pursuit of knowledge, and some of these tales have been prophetic in terms of the ideas they proposed, but never, not a one has ever predicted the bad things that will happen. These things come about partially by mistake, part by misuse, part by ignorance, and above all totally human intentional interference. The scientists who realised how much energy was contained within an atom didn't advocate nuclear weapons, human governments who were at war with each other did that.
I do not mean to say throw caution to the wind. We have to be on guard for the 'bad things' or more correctly the 'bad people who like to do bad things' and do our best to inhibit them at once. It is unfortunate we are not as evolved as we like to think we are, what a pedestal we place ourselves upon, we can only fall off. But knowledge, once gained and remembered can only help us back up.
On the contrary, I'd eventually say let's do our best not to get more -corruptible - scientists than we already have : they are the people who made the world what it is today. But well, we've all got different opinions.
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/3984/50583142.jpg
Sammi79
09-21-10, 09:08 PM
we've all got different opinions.
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/3984/50583142.jpg
D'accord, Alex! Image très belle mais redoutable. C'est la vie.
Bonne nuit, cher monsieur.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.