steddyeddy wrote: » GM has prevented blindess and other diseases related to nutritional deficits for years. GM crops will also combat crops problems relayed too human causes such as them decline of the honey bee. Web needs GM crops and if Monsanto enhanced global crops production thats not a bad thing. Saying that I would be against the total privatisation of crops production despite its benifits.
Slutmonkey57b wrote: » Is it your contention that scientific manipulation of genes is the *same process* as natural selection, or natural cross pollination? Because if it is, your defense falls down.
Slutmonkey57b wrote: » Modified crops such as dwarf wheat are being linked to all sorts of health problems, notably obesity and gluten intolerance. This is the first I've heard of a foodstuff being linked as a cure for blindness, so a link would be helpful. Switching the world to an American diet of processed or modified foods is not the same as feeding it, in fact probably the opposite.
steddyeddy wrote: » All wheat gives people who are gluten intolerant problems.
steddyeddy wrote: » I think your science falls down too be honest. When scientists first synthesised citric acid it was citric acid atom for atom. All scientists are doing here is to tell the cell's molecular machinery to make a protein from a set of altered instructions. It is simply a more precise process of artificial selection that us domestic crops products to begin with.
Slutmonkey57b wrote: » And why have rates of food allergies, intolerance, obesity, diabetes and heart disease all increased dramatically since the war? Industrialised agriculture and processed food use is a coincidence?
Slutmonkey57b wrote: » synthesis of an inert chemical is in no way on the same level of complexity, difficulty or consequence as genetic manipulation of living cells, whose further evolution can't be understood by the scientists who are doing the manipulations.
steddyeddy wrote: » In regards to them bee problem I am against them use yes.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » Not the same thing at all, this is propaganda put out by the GM corps and repeated frequently. The hybridisation of naturally compatible plant varieties or animals within the same species cannot be compared to genetic modification. Hybridisation happens naturally in the wild, it doesn't have to be mans hand that encourages it. GM processes create things that would never come about naturally.
steddyeddy wrote: » Obesity is a result of increased access too food. The same can be said for heart disease and diabetes.
Food allergies and intolerance have been around for thousands of years.
pajopearl wrote: » I genuinely think that that word has been manufactured to add weight to a vague argument. Cross Breeding and Cross Pollination are both genetic mutations and as such are genetic modifications. The fact that one takes place in a lab versus the other in nature shouldn't matter in this case.
steddyeddy wrote: » Are you against insulin? That is a gm product.
pajopearl wrote: » I genuinely think that that word has been manufactured to add weight to a vague argument. Cross Breeding and Cross Pollination are both genetic mutations and as such are genetic modifications. The fact that one takes place in a lab versus the other in nature shouldn't matter in this case. I do take issue with human cloning though, but that's off topic.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » GM food is the way of the future. Like it or not our growing population needs a higher level of produce to sustain itself.
Mike Funnelly wrote: » Essentially what happens is that you buy the seed, grow the seed, and sell all the seed to whoever buys it. If you keep some to grow the following year, you are technically infringing on their patent. You are not allowed to keep it and store it for the next growing season. So each year they get their pound/ton of flesh, selling you new seed.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » The fact of the matter is millions are starving in the world as we speak and GM food can provide enough food to solve these problems.
miss no stars wrote: » I direct you to this: Which means that this: is nonsense. The GM seed being produced is a)expensive and b) mostly aimed at eliminating the need for pesticides... GM seed won't solve world hunger. First off, it has to be bought fresh every year. That practice of keeping some spuds back to plant the crop next year? Gone. Illegal. A strong wind accidently blows some of the crop's seeds into your neighbour's field next door, they harvest it and unwittingly plant it next year? They're sued by the GM firm for everything they have. The one thing that GM seed will NOT do is solve food problems in developing nations.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » I support GM food but not the ridiculous patent Mansanto controls.
Wibbs wrote: » Yes and no. The amount of trans fats and sugar(cheap ass fructuse from corn in particular) in our food has increased massively in the past few decades and that's entirely down to the food industry. Indeed they have taken some of the tactics of the tobacco industry on board, particularly in the US. Example? The sugar industry in the US is threatening to bring the World Health Organisation to its knees by demanding that Congress end its funding unless the WHO scraps guidelines on healthy eating, due to be published on Wednesday. Hell some of the ex tobacco crowd are moving into the food industry.
Slutmonkey57b wrote: » Insulin is not a GM product. Insulin, as first used in the 1920's for the treatment of diabetes, was not and does not need to be produced using GM means. And industrialised/modified/processed foods are responsible for the rise in diabetes which requires the insulin in the first place. So a better question is "Why do you want more people to become diabetic?"
Slutmonkey57b wrote: » It's an important distinction. Lab manipulation of specific genes is a blind, assumptive, brute force approach whose results are supposedly scientific but can't actually be predicted. Manual husbandry produces hybrid crops but uses stable natural processes which have thousands of years of use behind them to prove the validity of the technique, and where nature is the element in control, not intellectual assumptions based on incomplete knowledge masquerading as expertise.
steddyeddy wrote: » Yes it is. In fact bacteria are genetically modified to produce many life saving proteins.
steddyeddy wrote: » Actually human cross breeding of crops which has being going on for thousands of years is the blunt force. Gene manipulation is more akin to surgical precision.
Jonny7 wrote: » Weren't potatoes originally poisonous? isn't every corn on the cob genetically identical and sourced from only one plant? Apparently qlmost all crops we eat have been modified - by ourselves (and in some cases we can't out how on earth they did it) Except that now, a few people who've seen "Food Inc" think Monsanto are some bastion of pure evilness, and all their evil scientists are Germans with round thin rimmed specs creating long-term poisonous food for their own evil profit making ends.. or something.
Slutmonkey57b wrote: » Corporations exist to make profits. Nothing else. If at this point in history you don't understand that corporations only ever do what is morally right when forced to do so, then you're naieve beyond belief. From recent history, look at Banks and financial markets. Take the example of america's dust bowl. Valuable, fertile, stable agricultural pasture was held by smallholders and farmed successfully for decades. Speculative banks looking for profits persuaded smallholders to take out loans. To service those loans, they then demanded that the most profitable crop, cotton, be planted. The massive rise in monoculture cotton destroyed the arable land. When the price of cotton crashed, the banks repossessed the smallholdings. Result? Starvation, poverty, the destruction of millions of acres of arable land, and the mass movement of populations. This is what corporations do. This is the sort of thing that happens to a society where the interests of profiteering corporations are put before common sense or the interests of the wider world. Who is telling us that GM is "the future"? People who want to sell us GM products. Who is telling us that GM is a safe form of technology? Scientists who are interested in the intellectual challenge. Neither of these arguments can be trusted when applied to the food chain. The food chain is too important, and it is impossible to properly control. One party has a strong incentive to lie (and will), and the other party is blinded by intellectual arrogance. Conversely, if a human volunteers for genetic manipulation, that human's further reproduction can absolutely be controlled, ironically. You can lock humans in a box, you can't lock nature in a box.
nmop_apisdn wrote: » Iwasfrozen wrote: certainly. "What we have is enough" is not an option. It's fine for now but what happens when the world population is 20 billion? Never gonna happen. Nature or a few corporations will make sure of that.9.6B by 2050 current estimate.
Iwasfrozen wrote: certainly. "What we have is enough" is not an option. It's fine for now but what happens when the world population is 20 billion?
