24 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainI will consider it, but I don't feel like doing so right now.
In my last post I provided a link and you didn't read it. If you had you would realize you are in error in more ways than one. I recommend you watch the film though. It explains much more than the link and you will surely be enlightened by it if you simply watch it and pay attention.
If you learn't something from it, why are you having so much trouble explaining it to us?
Where am I in error, and what exactly is special about GM genes?
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyHave you ever heard of corn pollen? It is hard to keep the wind blowing it to other strains of corn. When a deformed GM corn plant crosses with a non GMO corn the deformity can be passed on to it.
That link isn't to a film and also doesn't say anything to contradict what I just said.
It only talks about deformities that Agent Orange causes -what does that have to do with GM causing deformities?
And why on earth wouldn't the geneticists reject any deformed GM plants and only select those that are not deformed thus insuring thus only selecting those plan ...[text shortened]... obviously in their interest too because they would have a hard time selling deformed plants!
That link is to a film and you clearly did not watch it all the way through. The link I provided explains it exactly as the documentary does. Are you purposely avoiding watching the film because you fear it will prove you wrong?
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't think you were so darned lazy I would have to explain it.
I will consider it, but I don't feel like doing so right now.
If you learn't something from it, why are you having so much trouble explaining it to us?
Where am I in error, and what exactly is special about GM genes?
Here is an excerpt from the link below that I posted for you before:
''But,'' Chapela went on, ''the second point of our study was much more serious for Monsanto and similar companies. In investigating where the fragments of transgenic DNA were located, we found that they had been inserted into different places in the plant genome in a completely random way. That means that, contrary to what GMO producers claim, the technique of genetic engineering is not stable, because once the GMO cross-pollinates with another plant, the transgene splits up and is inserted in an uncontrolled way. The most virulent criticisms were particularly focused on that part of the study, denouncing our technical incompetence and our lack of expertise to evaluate this type of phenomenon.''
The fact that ''the transgenes were unstable'' had ''profound'' implications, according to an article in Science in February 2002: ''Because a gene's behaviour depends on its place in the genome, the displaced DNA could be creating utterly unpredictable effects.''
https://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/3012
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainMore like you have been avoiding doing so. You had time to post an awful lot in this thread, but did not feel you needed to explain the actual claim?
I didn't think you were so darned lazy I would have to explain it.
What you quoted now seems very vague and I will ask again:
what exactly is special about these genes that would not apply to other genes. One of your quotes calls the genes 'unstable'. What does this mean? Are only GM genes unstable, or can normal genes be unstable? What exactly is the difference between GM genes and normal genes?
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI posted a thread before this one on the debates forum and very few people wanted to watch the film I posted here either. I avoided it in hopes you and others would watch the documentary. There is so much information there it is hard to remember it all and I have limited internet service, so I would prefer not to waste it watching the film multiple times to be accurate in posting the info here. Like you my time is spent elsewhere and I don't have unlimited time to analyze it.
More like you have been avoiding doing so. You had time to post an awful lot in this thread, but did not feel you needed to explain the actual claim?
What you quoted now seems very vague and I will ask again:
what exactly is special about these genes that would not apply to other genes. One of your quotes calls the genes 'unstable'. What does this mean? ...[text shortened]... an normal genes be unstable? What exactly is the difference between GM genes and normal genes?
The film did a good job of showing that Monsanto has lied in the past about their products at the expense of human health. They clearly cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Later in the film they address the GMO issue.
Monsanto is an evil corporation in that they value profits more than human life. This is a fact and it is indisputable. The rest can be disputed and so we are doing that, but I think you should watch the film before you claim to know the facts.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal Brainhttp://www.skepticblog.org/2012/11/08/argumentum-ad-monsantium/
You should watch it so you learn something.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
In my last post I provided a link and you didn't read it. If you had you would realize you are in error in more ways than one. I recommend you watch the film though. It explains much more than the link and you will surely be enlightened by it if you simply watch it and pay attention.
24 Jun 13
7 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
Have you ever heard of corn pollen? It is hard to keep the wind blowing it to other strains of corn. When a deformed GM corn plant crosses with a non GMO corn the deformity can be passed on to it.
That link is to a film and you clearly did not watch it all the way through. The link I provided explains it exactly as the documentary does. Are you purposely avoiding watching the film because you fear it will prove you wrong?
When a deformed GM corn plant crosses with a non GMO corn the deformity can be passed on to it.
1, as far as I know, there are no GM crops consisting of at least mostly deformed plants that are being commercially farmed and I assume the selling of seeds that give mainly deformed plants would be extremely unlikely since there would be little incentive for the farmers to buy such seed!
2, When a deformed NON GM corn plant crosses with another non GMO corn the deformity can be passed on to it.
So why would that be any more or less of a problem than “When a deformed GM corn plant crosses with a non GMO corn the deformity can be passed on to it. “?
That link is to a film and you clearly did not watch it all the way through.
Actually, the first time I went to at the link, the film didn't appear and I didn’t know why it wouldn't appear if it was there so I just assumed it didn't exist, so I watched none of it. I have just been to the same link again and this time the film DID appear so I was able to watch it. It is a long and extremely boring film so you would excuse me if I do not watch all of it like you have. Since you have watched it, can you tell be exactly WHERE in that film does it disprove ANY of my statements? Please give just one example and state how so.
The parts I did watch were all irrelevant to my specific claims. The film seemed to be against Monsanto rather than really about being against GM in general and, since I have absolutely no opinion on Monsanto and have made no claims about the good or evil of Monsanto which is a subject I have absolutely no interest in whatsoever, this would appear to make it totally irrelevant to all the statements I made about GM.
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainI couldn't care less how evil Monsanto corporation is. I don't buy their products and am unlikely to in future.
Monsanto is an evil corporation in that they value profits more than human life. This is a fact and it is indisputable. The rest can be disputed and so we are doing that, but I think you should watch the film before you claim to know the facts.
However, you seem to equate Monsanto being evil with all GM products being unsafe to eat or in some other way inherently harmful to the environment or to agriculture, simply because they are GM.
Now I dislike Mugabe with a passion, and believe he has ruined his country. But if I then started making remarks about 'black presidents', do you see the problem?
Lets just suppose that some agricultural research station in Zambia, produced a variety of corn via selective breeding and hybridization, that was harmful to humans, or gave the crop deformities. In what ways would it be different from a Monsanto produced crop? Why is the Monsanto crop more dangerous merely because they used GM technology? What specifically about GM is the problem? Remember this has nothing whatsoever to do with Monsanto, is it about GM vs selective breeding / hybridization.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo. I have not yet had the time (or inclination)
Did you watch the film?
However that's besides the point.
I am discussing the pro's and cons of GM not whether or not a particular
corporation is good or bad.
If your response to questions about the safety/value of GM foods is to say
"Monsanto is bad" then the link I posted is completely relevant.
I have no trouble believing that a giant multinational corporation is bad.
But that is not relevant to the question of whether or not GM FOODS/crops
are inherently bad/unsafe.
In the same way that a nuclear reactor rush-built with a poor design and little/no
oversight or regulation and then run by poorly trained operators past it's design
limits in a rush to produce plutonium for nuclear bombs is highly dangerous.
But doesn't invalidate ALL nuclear reactors or nuclear technology as a whole.
The 'fact' that Monsanto may (like many corporations) only really care about
the bottom line and may act contrary to the common good and cut corners
given half a chance is an argument for adequate oversight and regulation
regardless of what industry it's involved in.
It's not an argument against the technology or application of GM in general.
EDIT:
I have however read this.
You should too.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112
There are a lot of good things in it but I would just like to post the ending...
"I'll conclude my discussion of GMO with a quote from Norman Borlaug, who says it better than I could:
"Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."
Well said."
24 Jun 13
1 edit
Metal Brain
OK, to show you as concisely as I can what we keep seeing as the obvious flaw in what you say, consider this simple hypothetical experiment:
first screen the genomes of many pea plant until you find one pea plant P1 that has a naturally occurring unique non deleterious gene X in it (due to a mutation) that no other pea plant is known to have.
Then get any of the other pea plants and create from it a GM pea plant P2 that has exactly that same gene X ( i.e. gene with identical genetic code) and inserted in exactly the same place in the genome as where it was in that P1 plant genome BUT, instead of extracting that gene X from P1 to insert it into P2, the gene X is made from scratch artificially in a laboratory and then inserted in thus making it defined as a 'GM gene'.
So, given the fact that this GM pea plant P2 has an identical gene X as one naturally occurring in a NON GM pea plant P1 and in exactly the same part of its genome, how would that GM gene be any more dangerous than the identical but NON GM gene?
Note this question has nothing to do with Monsanto.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyWhy are you obsessed with peas?
Metal Brain
OK, to show you as concisely as I can what we keep seeing as the obvious flaw in what you say, consider this simple hypothetical experiment:
first screen the genomes of many pea plant until you find one pea plant P1 that has a naturally occurring unique non deleterious gene X in it (due to a mutation) that no other pea plant is known to have. ...[text shortened]... ous than the identical but NON GM gene?
Note this question has nothing to do with Monsanto.
Sorry I don't really have the time or inclination to argue this any more, the debate strikes me as circular, and I'm way off my field. However here is a point to consider - given that using current non-GM methods we can feed the world several times over what is the point in genetically modifying crops?
25 Jun 13
Google Thierry Vrain.
"I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research - done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries - showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats."
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyLong before this thread was created I started a thread on the debates forum that I stated I don't think GMOs are all bad, just that biotech is in the wrong hands because Monsanto does not care about human life.When a deformed GM corn plant crosses with a non GMO corn the deformity can be passed on to it.
1, as far as I know, there are no GM crops consisting of at least mostly deformed plants that are being commercially farmed and I assume the selling of seeds that give mainly deformed plants would be extremely unlikely since there would be litt ...[text shortened]... oever, this would appear to make it totally irrelevant to all the statements I made about GM.
Monsanto just wants to peddle their nasty chemicals like roundup. They are not interested in making crops grow better without chemicals. They want profits even if they have to harm people to do it and they have a history of lying about their products so people will continue to die from them.
Watch the film until you get to where Mexico's corn has been contaminated with GMO corn. I'm not impressed by people that think this contamination is no big deal.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhitehead"you seem to equate Monsanto being evil with all GM products being unsafe to eat or in some other way inherently harmful to the environment or to agriculture, simply because they are GM."
I couldn't care less how evil Monsanto corporation is. I don't buy their products and am unlikely to in future.
However, you seem to equate Monsanto being evil with all GM products being unsafe to eat or in some other way inherently harmful to the environment or to agriculture, simply because they are GM.
Now I dislike Mugabe with a passion, and believe ...[text shortened]... othing whatsoever to do with Monsanto, is it about GM vs selective breeding / hybridization.
That is not true at all. Take a look at my thread on the debates forum which I created before this one. I clearly stated that biotech is not all bad, just that it is in the wrong hands.
Monsanto should have been sued out of existence a long time ago. They are murderers that could care less about human life.