More GM crop destruction

[Number Six]

It seems the latest is to wear white biohazard suits while destroying food. What fun! By the way, wouldn't humans themselves qualify as genetically modified organisms? How exactly is it that life would ever change (or that life could have ever developed in the first place) if genes had never been modified? Or is this another case of "If humans do X it's bad whereas if any other force in the Universe brings about X it's good?"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/16/spain.gmo.reut/index.html

 

[CurtC]

Every crop that's grown is a domesticated variety of some species which wasn't nearly as good before humans domesticated it. If genes had never been modified by humans, we'd still be hunter/gatherers. The people destroying GM crops would probably say that this is a good idea.

 

[BPSCG]

Every crop that's grown is a domesticated variety of some species

You could expand this statement dramatically and still be within the bounds of truth: Nearly everything that lives is the result of genetic engineering - most of it by nature. Otherwise, none of us would be here today - we would never have evolved from our bacterial ancestors.

The difference between GM performed by humans and GM performed by Mother Nature is that we humans are a lot more careful than nature when it comes to loosing our creations on the world. If lab tests reveal that a new strain of wheat can cause skin lesions in a tiny portion of the population, we destroy it and try again. Mother Nature, OTOH, happily bequeaths us poison ivy.

 

[Shane Costello]

At times like these it's always worth noting the following:

There's good evidence that genetic modification of wheat helped kickstart civilization in the Fertile Crescent.

There's no such thing as completely safe food.

 

[BPSCG]

At times like these it's always worth noting the following:

There's good evidence thatgenetic modification of wheat helped kickstart civilization in the Fertile Crescent.

You mean those terrorist #$%^!s have been using GM food against us for thousands of years?

 

[Rolfe]

Mother Nature, OTOH, happily bequeaths us poison ivy.

But then if you're into homoeopathy, this is an absolutely staple remedy. You just have to remember to call it "Rhus toxicodendron" or "Rhus tox" so that the marks will think you're clever.

But then again, we all know how much actual plant is in the shaken-up water anyway.

Rolfe (running away back to the homoeopathy discussion before the flames start...)

 

[DanishDynamite]

While genetic changes have been happening since the dawn of life, using this fact as an argument that genetic engineering is nothing new, is bogus. With genetic engineering, genes from completely unrelated species can be crossed, something not exactly common in nature (for species above bacteria). With GE, strawberries can be given fish genes. This is the power of GE but also IMO the worry.

 

[BPSCG]

While genetic changes have been happening since the dawn of life, using this fact as an argument that genetic engineering is nothing new, is bogus. With genetic engineering, genes from completely unrelated species can be crossed, something not exactly common in nature (for species above bacteria). With GE, strawberries can be given fish genes. This is the power of GE but also IMO the worry.

And what bad things have resulted thus far from our crossing petunias with leghorn chickens? Meanwhile, Mother Nature is blessing us with new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria every day.

 

[DanishDynamite]

BPSCG:

And what bad things have resulted thus far from our crossing petunias with leghorn chickens?

"And what bad things have resulted thus far from me jumping off a 100 story building?". Quote from an imaginary guy as he was passing the 31st story.

Your question is immaterial.

You might want to google the words "Starlink corn", though.

Meanwhile, Mother Nature is blessing us with new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria every day.

Indeed. How does that relate to GE?

 

[Number Six]

Genes from seemingly completely unrelated life forms are mixed by nature, but it's just that nature takes a longer time for nature to do it. And in fact, that is why I used the phrase "seemingly completely unrelated" since no life on Earth is completely unrelated to other life on Earth.

Going willy-nilly and making new things without testing them is bad but nobody defends that anyway. Many of the people "protesting" this (ie, destroying crops already approved by testing or destroyng crops currently involved in testing) simply don't want GM foods to exsit at all (or more accuratly, the don't want certain GM foods to exsit, namely those created by modern technology).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

A fish gene in a strawberry plant is: A GENE...not a freaking fish, and it can't code proteins that will make the strawberry taste fishy or sprout fins and swim away in a rainstorm.

All genes are made of the exact same stuff. DNA. Just because it codes for something different than anything else you find in a strawberry doesn not make it foreign. Hell, those super huge strawberries can hardly be called natural.

What about seedless watermelon or those not-like-peaches nectarines.

but, look at any woo woo site on GMO and you'll see that we're all doomed to having mutant fish genes from strawberries messing with our genes and causing babies to be born with gills (hell, gills and lungs-cool! WTF is wrong with that...LOL!)

Add a dose of irradiation and we are doomed to eat food where there is a conspiracy to use up nuclear waste and mutated (GMO) food dumped on third world countries.

How dare the governments and large companies take over the world and push poison on us all...gads!

The usual woo woo conspiracy theory and their claims to save us all with their 'alternatives'. They care about you don't ya know!

 

[Kimpatsu]

And what bad things have resulted thus far from our crossing petunias with leghorn chickens?

People who were allergic to nuts were given fish into which nut genes had been transplanted, and they are now allergic to the fish.
That's one bad thing, right there.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons:
A fish gene in a strawberry plant is: A GENE...not a freaking fish, and it can't code proteins that will make the strawberry taste fishy or sprout fins and swim away in a rainstorm.

Precisely. The point is that the genetic code is identical across all species and life forms. Introducing a fish gene into a strawberry plant is just a matter of introducing more dinucleotide bases into a sequence of dinucleotide bases.

Originally posted by kimpatsu:
People who were allergic to nuts were given fish into which nut genes had been transplanted, and they are now allergic to the fish.
That's one bad thing, right there.

So we won't be splicing allergenic nut genes into fish, then. No one is arguing that all genetic modification is good and bebeficial, but it's equally disingenuous to suggest that all genetic modification is bad.

 

[Kimpatsu]

So we won't be splicing allergenic nut genes into fish, then.

Too late; it's already been done.

No one is arguing that all genetic modification is good and bebeficial, but it's equally disingenuous to suggest that all genetic modification is bad.

I'll concede that point. My major beef (non-GM, I hope! ) with GM foods is that they represent a padlock on the food chain by the major corporations, who have even built terminator genes into seeds so that farmers can't use cuttings to seed their next harvest. They have to go back to the corporations every year. This is serious abuse, don't you think?

 

[Leif Roar]

Many of the people "protesting" this (ie, destroying crops already approved by testing or destroyng crops currently involved in testing) simply don't want GM foods to exsit at all [SNIP]

Others who protest against genetically modified crops, though, merely feels that the testing hasn't been stringent enough for widespread use of the crops.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu:
Too late; it's already been done.

But is it still being done, or is it an example that the regulatory machinery in place for GM food is efficient and works to weed out undesireable applications of the process. Note that this is a natural allergen, not one resulting directly from GM technology.

I'll concede that point. My major beef (non-GM, I hope! ) with GM foods is that they represent a padlock on the food chain by the major corporations, who have even built terminator genes into seeds so that farmers can't use cuttings to seed their next harvest. They have to go back to the corporations every year. This is serious abuse, don't you think?

Hardly. The corporations have a right to protect their investment and reap the rewards of their research. OTOH the farmers are under no obligation to purchase the corporation's seed, and can continue to use conventional varieties if they so wish. However, if the GM seed delivers higher yields then the farmer may well conclude that it's worthwhile purchasing new seed every year. The bottom line is that the corporations do not have a monopoly on the supply of seed, so I'd hardly call conventional business practice a "serious abuse".

 

[Kimpatsu]

But is it still being done, or is it an example that the regulatory machinery in place for GM food is efficient and works to weed out undesireable applications of the process. Note that this is a natural allergen, not one resulting directly from GM technology.

That doesn't matter; the point is to flood the market so that all non-GM food is driven from the shelves. Read George Monbiot's Captive State for details. ("A Padlock on the Food Chain")

Hardly. The corporations have a right to protect their investment and reap the rewards of their research. OTOH the farmers are under no obligation to purchase the corporation's seed, and can continue to use conventional varieties if they so wish. However, if the GM seed delivers higher yields then the farmer may well conclude that it's worthwhile purchasing new seed every year. The bottom line is that the corporations do not have a monopoly on the supply of seed, so I'd hardly call conventional business practice a "serious abuse".

If this is conventional business practice, then it stinks. Impoverished Third World farmers are being forced to import seeds they don't want and can't store, which will only drive them further into debt, resulting in greater poverty and starvation. This must be opposed at all costs. If you think it's fair, you go and live in the Third World and try to manage as they have to.

 

[Drooper]

That doesn't matter; the point is to flood the market so that all non-GM food is driven from the shelves. Read George Monbiot's Captive State for details. ("A Padlock on the Food Chain")

In just the same way as those evil car makers flooded the market with cars so that all the horses and carts were driven from the market.

conspiracy alert ... conspiracy alert.....

 

[Drooper]

If this is conventional business practice, then it stinks. Impoverished Third World farmers are being forced to import seeds they don't want and can't store, which will only drive them further into debt, resulting in greater poverty and starvation. This must be opposed at all costs. If you think it's fair, you go and live in the Third World and try to manage as they have to.

I think you will find that the "third world" are quite keen on the idea of GM. Higher yields, greater resistance to drought or other climatic extremes, reduced need for pesticides are some of the advantages that they want.

 

[Kimpatsu]

In just the same way as those evil car makers flooded the market with cars so that all the horses and carts were driven from the market.

conspiracy alert ... conspiracy alert.....

Strawman analogy. Cars drove out horses and carts because they were better (more efficient, faster, etc.)
With GM, people have no choice.