New variant E. coli Outbreak

ed2hands wrote: »

The point you made that above somewhere that less pesticide is now needed i have a feeling is not accurate either based on this:

http://www.gm.org/gm-organisms/impact-of-gm-crops-on-pesticide-herbicide-use/

And any chance you can find information about this without relying on a clearly biased site?

I'm sure Dennis is a very nice man, but I don't trust him enough to be giving a clear and unbiased examination of the report he's talking about, especially when he doesn't actually provide the reference.

King Mob wrote: »

And since you're so obviously more educated in this matter, could you point to examples of actual crops that have been given animal genes that are actually used for food?
Or perhaps you can show that the vast vast vast majority of genetic modification isn't the exact thing I described?

Here are a few tests that have been done. No doubt MOB will be the first to chow it down when it hits the supermarkets.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Corn and Hepatitis B and Simian Immunodeficiency Virus [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] ProdiGene genetically engineered a corn with genes from a number of viruses, including hepatitis B virus and the simian immunodeficiency virus. USDA issued a permit in 2001 for ProdiGene to field test this pharmaceutical corn on 53.5 acres in Nebraska.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Safflower and Carp [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Emlay and Associates created safflower that produces pharmaceutical proteins by genetically engineering the safflower with growth hormones from carp. USDA agreed in June 2003 for this crop to be grown on 11 acres in North Dakota and Nevada.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Wheat and Chickens [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The University of Nebraska acquired three permits to grow field trials of wheat genetically engineered with chicken genes to produce fungal resistance. The field tests were authorized to occur between March 2002 and August 2003 in Nebraska.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Rats and Soybeans [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The University of Kentucky used the genes of the Norwegian rat to alter the oil profile of soybeans. The test was authorized to begin in May 2003 on an acre in Kentucky and can continue until May 2004.[/FONT]
http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1030-03.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The report disputes industry claims that they can insert foreign DNA into new species with great accuracy, and that the technology is merely an extension of traditional plant breeding. In May 2000, for example, Monsanto disclosed for the first time that its genetically engineered soybeans—their most widely used product, which has been on the market for four years—contained additional and unexpected gene fragments. Just one year later, Monsanto had to admit once again that additional unexpected DNA was discovered in the soybeans.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Despite very visible gaffes by the biotechnology industry, such as illegal corn in taco shells or unapproved genetically engineered livestock in the food supply, it is shocking to learn about experiments that put rat genes in soybeans and chicken genes in corn," added Caplan. "Because genetically engineered crops are poorly regulated and resulting food products carry no consumer label, consumers are all test subjects in a vast food experiment."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Food and Drug Administration does not require safety testing or labeling for genetically engineered foods. 80-90 percent of the American public consistently favors mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. The Department of Agriculture was recently excoriated by the National Academy of Sciences for inadequate oversight over field testing of genetically engineered crops and a lack of scientific expertise.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]U.S. PIRG and Genetically Engineered Food Alert criticized the U.S. government's continued efforts to force genetically engineered products on American consumers by failing to offer consumer choice through mandatory labeling, and forcing them abroad through trade threats and multilateral trading institutions such as the World Trade Organization. Kraft is the largest food company in the United States and second largest in the world. The coalition criticized Kraft for removing genetically engineered ingredients from food sold in the European Union while taking no such action in the United States.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Genetically engineered products are being forced on us without adequate testing and without consumer choice," concluded Caplan. "Kraft has the opportunity to be a leader in rejecting genetically engineered crops but has failed to do so. It is time for the food industry and the biotechnology industry to stop this unwelcome experiment on the U.S. environment and American consumers."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genetically Engineered Food Alert supports the removal of genetically engineered ingredients from grocery store shelves unless they are adequately safety tested and labeled. www.gefoodalert.org [/FONT]

Here is a more interesting recent one. Unfortunately is not animal genes this time.

Pro-life groups call for Pepsi boycott over aborted fetal cell lines

LARGO, Florida, May 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Scores of prolife groups are calling for a public boycott of food giant, PepsiCo, due to its partnership with Senomyx, a biotech company that uses aborted fetal cells in the research and development of artificial flavor enhancers.

LifeSiteNews previously reported on Senomyx’s partnership with major food corporations, most notably PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, and Nestlé.
Pro-life watchdog group, Children of God for Life (CGL), is now joined by major pro-life organizations calling upon the public to target PepsiCo in a boycott.
Pepsi is funding the research and development, and paying royalties to Senomyx, which uses HEK-293 (human embryonic kidney cells) to produce flavor enhancers for Pepsi beverages.
“Using isolated human taste receptors we created proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems that provide a biochemical or electronic readout when a flavor ingredient interacts with the receptor,” says the Senomyx website.

“What they do not tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 – human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors,” stated Debi Vinnedge, President for CGL, the watch dog group that has been monitoring the use of aborted fetal material in medical products and cosmetics for years.

The aborted fetal cells are not in the product itself. However, “there are many options PepsiCo could be using instead of aborted fetal cells,” noted Vinnedge.
The revelation about Senomyx’s research techniques motivated Campbell Soup to sever all relations with Senomyx.
However, PepsiCo continues their business relationship despite the abortion connection. They drew public ire earlier this year when they responded, saying, “our collaboration with Senomyx is strictly limited to creating lower-calorie, great-tasting beverages for consumers.”

When pressed further, PepsiCo sent out a form letter response saying they had been accused of conducting aborted fetal tissue research.
Bradley Mattes, executive director of Life Issues Institute, said, “While aborted fetal cells aren’t actually in the product itself, the close relationship is enough to repulse most consumers.

To our knowledge, this is the first time a food product has been publicly associated with abortion.”
The pro-life groups noted that additional companies collaborating with Senomyx will be targeted for boycott next.
The pro-life organizations are asking the public to boycott all Pepsi drink products and encourage consumers to contact Pepsi management requesting that they sever all ties with Senomyx.

Dangerous Toxins From Genetically Modified Plants Found in Women and Fetuses

When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto’s genetically modified “Bt” corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That’s what it was designed to do. The corn’s DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a pesticide; it breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.

But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore up and down that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.

Oops. A study just proved them wrong.

Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the corn’s Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women. (1) (Specifically, the toxin was identified in 93% of 30 pregnant women, 80% of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67% of 39 non-pregnant women.) The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.

According to the UK Daily Mail, this study, which “appears to blow a hole in” safety claims, “has triggered calls for a ban on imports and a total overhaul of the safety regime for genetically modified (GM) crops and food.” Organizations from England to New Zealand are now calling for investigations and for GM crops to be halted due to the serious implications of this finding.
http://permaculture.org.au/2011/05/31/dangerous-toxins-from-genetically-modified-plants-found-in-women-and-fetuses/

Sheep That’s 15% Human Created for Transplants

Scientists have created the world’s first human-sheep chimera – which has the body of a sheep and half-human organs. The sheep have 15 per cent human cells and 85 per cent animal cells – and their evolution brings the prospect of animal organs being transplanted into humans one step closer.

Professor Esmail Zanjani, of the University of Nevada, has spent seven years and £5million perfecting the technique, which involves injecting adult human cells into a sheep’s foetus. He has already created a sheep liver which has a large proportion of human cells and eventually hopes to precisely match a sheep to a transplant patient, using their own stem cells to create their own flock of sheep.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sheep_thats_15_human_created_for_transplants/

King Mob wrote: »

And any chance you can find information about this without relying on a clearly biased site?

I'm sure Dennis is a very nice man, but I don't trust him enough to be giving a clear and unbiased examination of the report he's talking about, especially when he doesn't actually provide the reference.

I think the source was below the article.

http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/11696-cherry-picking-new-report-on-gm-and-pesticides

Talk E wrote: »

Here are a few tests that have been done. No doubt MOB will be the first to chow it down when it hits the supermarkets.

So they are currently not available to be eaten and not currently on our shelves?

ed2hands wrote: »

I think the source was below the article.

http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/11696-cherry-picking-new-report-on-gm-and-pesticides

You really think that's a source by any stretch of the imagination?

Dennis refers to a particular study he remembered seeing that backs up his claims. Can you point to that exact study?

King Mob wrote: »

I've asked you to point out the horrible nasty GMed food we're all eating.
Note how I didn't said it didn't exist, nor suggest you're stupid for believing it.
But instead of directly answering those very simple questions you attack me personally.

If you really do want to engage in an actual adult debate that might challenge your beliefs, those questions are still waiting to be answered.

What you want to know?, links, details, I can and will supply them all.

No problem, but I'm just gushing from thread to thread, so I can't be wasting my time right now bowing down to your wishes, but fear not, when I get going here I won't stop, I'll stop you and anybody else in their tracks.

That's a promise, not a threat.

King Mob wrote: »

You really think that's a source by any stretch of the imagination?

Dennis refers to a particular study he remembered seeing that backs up his claims. Can you point to that exact study?

Is there not a pdf of the report in there? Thought i saw it.

ed2hands wrote: »

Is there not a pdf of the report in there? Thought i saw it.

A pdf of a biased report based on snippets of actual papers.

One would think you'd have actually read the paper he was referring to before you'd put his opinion forward.

King Mob wrote: »

A pdf of a biased report based on snippets of actual papers.

One would think you'd have actually read the paper he was referring to before you'd put his opinion forward.

I read it from a few sources a while back, so was fairly confident it was true. Maybe the onus is on you to back up your claim instead though.

33 wrote: »

What you want to know?, links, details, I can and will supply them all.

Simple, just a few examples of genetically modified crops which are available to the public to eat which have those evil animal genes in them.
And then something other than you opinion that the vast majority of genetic modification that goes on is any different to what we've been doing for thousands of year with selective and cross breeding.

King Mob wrote: »

A pdf of a biased report based on snippets of actual papers.

One would think you'd have actually read the paper he was referring to before you'd put his opinion forward.

Everyone is biased, every site is biased, with their own agenda.

It just depends on who you side with.

Why do you constantly use that to support your argument ?

It's a cop out.

33 wrote: »

That's bollox, plain and simple, do you know what they do to get what they get?, no you don't!, if you did you wouldn't come out with such tripe.

EDIT:
A decent amount of what exactly?

Genetics, plant resources, bioengineering, ecology, all that ****. The idea you seem to be struggling with is that they're putting a gene into a plant which wasn't there before. Putting a gene from for example, a frog into a plant is unlikely to have any effect, after plenty of trial and error it will have the desired effect. (I won't go into why it's harder than just putting the gene in and it working.) The end product isn't going to be a cross between a frog and a plant, it's going to be a plant with a useful new characteristic such as a specific fungal or bacterial resistance. In the days of selective breeding they bred whichever strains had beneficial characteristics without understanding the genetics behind it. Infection-resistant varieties survived and and were bred. Remembering of course that it's mutations that lead to variance, they were breeding unknown mutant varieties without knowing what had caused the difference. Usually of course it was a mutation which produced a different means of fighting infection. Also remember that plants are where many medicines are sourced or first identified. The difference is that now we understand what's happening, we can do it more efficiently and we can predict the outcome rather than crossing fingers.

As for Talk E's 4 examples, genes are easy to isolate from viruses and viuses are excellent ways to introduce genes, hence why they're used so often. A single gene from a virus being used in no way implies that that virus is infecting or affecting a crop. It's like those silly statistics that humans are whatever percentage genetically the same as potatoes.
1. Testing/research. Permit given 10 years ago, what's happened since? As I said, a gene from a virus is just that, a gene which happens to come from a virus but may easily be found in countless organisms.
2. Testing/research. Permit given 8 years ago, what's happened since? Growth hormones, they grow more quickly, sounds like interesting research to me, to see which growth hormone will work effectively. Also I'm sure there'll be research into using genes which are only expressed in the early period of a plant's life so as to avoid a huge change in the human food supply.
3. Again, testing and research to improve fungal resistance.
4. More research.

As for the aborted babies thing, how many of the cells came from aborted babies and how many were merely propagated from them. Also, since it's a usual tactic of the "pro-lifers" are they calling terminated IVF embryos aborted fetuses?

amacachi wrote: »

Genetics, plant resources, bioengineering, ecology, all that ****. The idea you seem to be struggling with is that they're putting a gene into a plant which wasn't there before. Putting a gene from for example, a frog into a plant is unlikely to have any effect, after plenty of trial and error it will have the desired effect. (I won't go into why it's harder than just putting the gene in and it working.) The end product isn't going to be a cross between a frog and a plant, it's going to be a plant with a useful new characteristic such as a specific fungal or bacterial resistance. In the days of selective breeding they bred whichever strains had beneficial characteristics without understanding the genetics behind it. Infection-resistant varieties survived and and were bred. Remembering of course that it's mutations that lead to variance, they were breeding unknown mutant varieties without knowing what had caused the difference. Usually of course it was a mutation which produced a different means of fighting infection. Also remember that plants are where many medicines are sourced or first identified. The difference is that now we understand what's happening, we can do it more efficiently and we can predict the outcome rather than crossing fingers.

As for Talk E's 4 examples, genes are easy to isolate from viruses and viuses are excellent ways to introduce genes, hence why they're used so often. A single gene from a virus being used in no way implies that that virus is infecting or affecting a crop. It's like those silly statistics that humans are whatever percentage genetically the same as potatoes.
1. Testing/research. Permit given 10 years ago, what's happened since? As I said, a gene from a virus is just that, a gene which happens to come from a virus but may easily be found in countless organisms.
2. Testing/research. Permit given 8 years ago, what's happened since? Growth hormones, they grow more quickly, sounds like interesting research to me, to see which growth hormone will work effectively. Also I'm sure there'll be research into using genes which are only expressed in the early period of a plant's life so as to avoid a huge change in the human food supply.
3. Again, testing and research to improve fungal resistance.
4. More research.

As for the aborted babies thing, how many of the cells came from aborted babies and how many were merely propagated from them. Also, since it's a usual tactic of the "pro-lifers" are they calling terminated IVF embryos aborted fetuses?

I read as far as this:

(I won't go into why it's harder than just putting the gene in and it working.)

Now go into it a little, I'm saving my strenght till tomorrow, honestly!

amacachi wrote: »

Genetics, plant resources, bioengineering, ecology, all that ****. The idea you seem to be struggling with is that they're putting a gene into a plant which wasn't there before. Putting a gene from for example, a frog into a plant is unlikely to have any effect, after plenty of trial and error it will have the desired effect. (I won't go into why it's harder than just putting the gene in and it working.) The end product isn't going to be a cross between a frog and a plant, it's going to be a plant with a useful new characteristic such as a specific fungal or bacterial resistance. In the days of selective breeding they bred whichever strains had beneficial characteristics without understanding the genetics behind it. Infection-resistant varieties survived and and were bred. Remembering of course that it's mutations that lead to variance, they were breeding unknown mutant varieties without knowing what had caused the difference. Usually of course it was a mutation which produced a different means of fighting infection. Also remember that plants are where many medicines are sourced or first identified. The difference is that now we understand what's happening, we can do it more efficiently and we can predict the outcome rather than crossing fingers.

As for Talk E's 4 examples, genes are easy to isolate from viruses and viuses are excellent ways to introduce genes, hence why they're used so often. A single gene from a virus being used in no way implies that that virus is infecting or affecting a crop. It's like those silly statistics that humans are whatever percentage genetically the same as potatoes.
1. Testing/research. Permit given 10 years ago, what's happened since? As I said, a gene from a virus is just that, a gene which happens to come from a virus but may easily be found in countless organisms.
2. Testing/research. Permit given 8 years ago, what's happened since? Growth hormones, they grow more quickly, sounds like interesting research to me, to see which growth hormone will work effectively. Also I'm sure there'll be research into using genes which are only expressed in the early period of a plant's life so as to avoid a huge change in the human food supply.
3. Again, testing and research to improve fungal resistance.
4. More research.

As for the aborted babies thing, how many of the cells came from aborted babies and how many were merely propagated from them. Also, since it's a usual tactic of the "pro-lifers" are they calling terminated IVF embryos aborted fetuses?

Have you ever heard of the green revolution in India?, the destruction and harm, hurt, devastation it has caused?, it was hailed as a miracle, do your homework before I give you 0%

The truth is, you dont know what in the food you eat. As usual it's about profit, not your health.

FDA sends US marshals to seize elderberry juice concentrate, deems it 'unapproved drug'

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032631_elderberry_juice_FDA_raid.html#ixzz1OdoZYsTe

Wyldewood Cellars, a Kansas-based producer and distributor of elderberry juice, is the latest raid target of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which recently sent US marshals to the company's winery in Mulvane to confiscate the "unapproved drug." According to the rogue agency, Wyldewood had violated provisions in the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) that restrict health claims for food items, warranting the sudden invasion.

According to Barry Grissom, US Attorney for Kansas, the FDA sent a warning letter to Wyldewood in 2006 to remove or modify certain health claims that it said were in violation of federal law, but the company did not comply. FDA officials claim that Wyldewood continued to make unapproved claims, and that seizing the product was the next step.

However, John Brewer, co-founder of Wyldewood, says that after receiving the initial FDA warning letter, his company hired a consultant familiar with FDA regulations to help his company reword their product descriptions. After making the appropriate changes, and clarifying that the elderberry products in question were supplements, Brewer says his company had done what it needed to in order to be in compliance.

Whole Foods admits its organic foods contain genetically modified ingredients

Genetically modified foods have become so ubiquitous in the US that even the grocery store 'Whole Foods' now admits it cannot keep biotech foods off its shelves. A representative for the corporation acknowledged in May of 2011 that the realities of the marketplace have forced a shift in the company's previous no-GMO's policy.

Joe Dickson, quality standards coordinator for Whole Foods Markets, notes that GMO's dominate the market, especially for corn, soy and canola crops from which ingredients in most processed foods are derived. "Until there's federal government mandated labeling of GMO ingredients, there's no way to tell if packaged products contain GMO ingredients," Dickson said. "Our approach is to work in the spirit of partnership with our suppliers ... to encourage them to take active steps to avoid GMO ingredients."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032628_Whole_Foods_GMOs.html#ixzz1Odou5gQC

ed2hands wrote: »

I read it from a few sources a while back, so was fairly confident it was true. Maybe the onus is on you to back up your claim instead though.

You mean besides the basic principle that breeding resistance to pests and disease would require less?
Sure
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/focusonenvimpacts2009.pdf

This study finds an overall decrease in the usage of pesticide use of about 8.8%

Talk E wrote: »

Everyone is biased, every site is biased, with their own agenda.

It just depends on who you side with.

Why do you constantly use that to support your argument ?

It's a cop out.

I'm not using it as a cop out I'm specifically asking for the original scientific basis for the claims of the author in the original article.
I didn't say he was wrong, just that I can't take his word for it.

The only ones who use the bias as a cop out is you guys when we provide actual scientific papers.

And again you claim everyone is biased, so then why are sites like natural news trustworthy?
Because they are on the same side as you?

33 wrote: »

I read as far as this:

Now go into it a little, I'm saving my strenght till tomorrow, honestly!

33 wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the green revolution in India?, the destruction and harm, hurt, devastation it has caused?, it was hailed as a miracle, do your homework before I give you 0%

Those two posts don't seem to quite match up.:rolleyes: So that's the only issue you have with my post, you accept the rest? For most people that would do, but I'll go ahead and explain it.
While every cell in animals and plants have a complete genome not every gene is expressed in every cell. There are other genes known as regulator genes which control the expression of genes in specific cells and in specific conditions. This fact is why simply inserting a gene doesn't usually give the desired effect, the regulator and other genes must interact with it to allow it to be expressed and to be expressed in the desired manner and duration.
That's just regulator genes, there's also the interaction with other genes and the possibility that other genes will prove dominant over the introduced gene.

King Mob wrote: »

You mean besides the basic principle that breeding resistance to pests and disease would require less?
Sure
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/focusonenvimpacts2009.pdf

This study finds an overall decrease in the usage of pesticide use of about 8.8%

Outdated it seems. Thats 2009. My linky is Feb 2011. I'll get back to you with your required concrete proof at some stage.

ed2hands wrote: »

Outdated it seems. Thats 2009. My linky is Feb 2011. I'll get back to you with your required concrete proof at some stage.

But your linky isn't actually backed up with anything, so it really doesn't matter how more recent it is.

Nor have I asked for "concrete proof" I just asked for the study the author of the article you post was referring to.

But it's pretty clear you are not able to do this.

33 wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the green revolution in India?, the destruction and harm, hurt, devastation it has caused?, it was hailed as a miracle, do your homework before I give you 0%

Believe it or not I have heard of it! Isn't that the thing that the lack of famine in India in the last few decades has been attributed to?
I also know that it wasn't and isn't without its downsides, some of which are just coming to light now. However most of that is due to poor planning and use of resources with a tenuous link to selective breeding. It's also something that the development of more disease-resistant crops, rather than focussing purely on yield, will help to address.

amacachi wrote: »

Those two posts don't seem to quite match up.:rolleyes: So that's the only issue you have with my post, you accept the rest? For most people that would do, but I'll go ahead and explain it.
While every cell in animals and plants have a complete genome not every gene is expressed in every cell. There are other genes known as regulator genes which control the expression of genes in specific cells and in specific conditions. This fact is why simply inserting a gene doesn't usually give the desired effect, the regulator and other genes must interact with it to allow it to be expressed and to be expressed in the desired manner and duration.
That's just regulator genes, there's also the interaction with other genes and the possibility that other genes will prove dominant over the introduced gene.

Listen you, listen to all the tripe you want, I will show in great display that you are talking through your hole, haha, seriously I will, just havent got the required motivation yet, but I will show you what I already know, you will either learn or be disabled, the choice is your's and your's only, but I will be the teacher, and you the student, I have a lot to offer, just not yet.bye

33 wrote: »

Listen you, listen to all the tripe you want, I will show in great display that you are talking through your hole, haha, seriously I will, just havent got the required motivation yet, but I will show you what I already know, you will either learn or be disabled, the choice is your's and your's only, but I will be the teacher, and you the student, I have a lot to offer, just not yet.bye

I look forward to it.

King Mob wrote: »

But your linky isn't actually backed up with anything, so it really doesn't matter how more recent it is.

Nor have I asked for "concrete proof" I just asked for the study the author of the article you post was referring to.

But it's pretty clear you are not able to do this.

Semantics again. I'll try to find it for you and get back to you. Am still incredulous you said selective breeding is EXACTLY the same as modern GM.

ed2hands wrote: »

Semantics again. I'll try to find it for you and get back to you. Am still incredulous you said selective breeding is EXACTLY the same as modern GM.

It's not semantics, because I've never asked for "concrete proof".

And why exactly do you have to go and find it?
Did you not check the claims in the article you posted yourself before you posted it?

Mob, tomorrow is lesson 1, GM is not as it has always been, I will show you up like a flower in bloom, except not as pretty from where your standing.

33 wrote: »

Mob, tomorrow is lesson 1, GM is not as it has always been, I will show you up like a flower in bloom, except not as pretty from where your standing.

33, I've asked you two exceeding simple things.
Why are you responding with nonsense like this instead of answering them?

amacachi wrote: »

Believe it or not I have heard of it! Isn't that the thing that the lack of famine in India in the last few decades has been attributed to?
I also know that it wasn't and isn't without its downsides, some of which are just coming to light now. However most of that is due to poor planning and use of resources with a tenuous link to selective breeding. It's also something that the development of more disease-resistant crops, rather than focussing purely on yield, will help to address.

No you read about it in the 20 mins it took you to reply, it's new to you.