Genetically altered food... Corruption agian.. lol

[taks]

as horribly bad as all these conspiring factors are, isn't it just a touch odd that people live twice as long as they did only a few centuries ago? there are new ways to die every day, yet, somehow, we still live longer now than ever before... ahem. go figure.

taks

[Guaigean]

Unfortunately, Product of the Cosmos is a lost cause. The only thing this discussion has done is prove that to me. No matter how much scientific evidence is exposed they will not accept it. PotC is simply a Stone Deaf (see http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html). Good luck beating anything into that one.

[taks]

i quite know this, glad i'm not alone

 

the reason it is worthwhile to point out how out of touch PoTC's claims are is that false information spreads like wildfire. if i can put out just one of those early fires before it spreads, i've made the net a better place to surf

 

taks

[Ellester]

Unfortunately, Product of the Cosmos is a lost cause.  The only thing this discussion has done is prove that to me.  No matter how much scientific evidence is exposed they will not accept it.  PotC is simply a Stone Deaf (see http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html).  Good luck beating anything into that one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL! That

[Guaigean]

Fixed now, thanks :D

[mkreku]

we aren't altered by genes in our food in any way,

 

I'd love to see you defend this statement, the hillarity factor alone would make it worth while.

 

Of course, you won't be able to with a single scientific paper that demonstrates an example of HGT between digested food DNA and those in our genome.

 

But do try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try? Sure.

 

Everything we eat (except for water and some really nasty sorts of chemical candy) contains genes. Imagine that! Luckily our stomachs are excellent food processors that break down the genomes (and basically everything else too) in everything we eat, regardless if it is genetically altered or not. We simply lack the ability to absorb genetic code through our digesting system. That is why genetically altered foods aren't more harmful to our human system than food created by nature.

 

And being afraid of genetics is like being afraid of poodles. Why? Because poodles are the result of genetic experimentation. The only difference is that it has taken several thousand years to turn a wolf into.. whatever poodles are, and we're used to the end result by now. This might burst your reality bubble, but most of the dogs you see around you weren't a creation of god. They're a creation of man. Some dogs wouldn't even survive if it weren't for humans (bulldogs for example).

 

Hope it was "hillarious" enough for you.

[taks]

uh, hate to say it mkreku, but that isn't a defense of the argument. well, it's a defense that lacks scientific proof (at least proof provided by you). you used an anecdotal argument which may make sense on some level, but still hasn't been proved by you. i think that's what aegeri's point was...

 

taks

[Weiser_Cain]

You don't absorb random genetic material from the things you eat.

[Aegeri]

uh, hate to say it mkreku, but that isn't a defense of the argument.  well, it's a defense that lacks scientific proof (at least proof provided by you).  you used an anecdotal argument which may make sense on some level, but still hasn't been proved by you.  i think that's what aegeri's point was...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Taks is correct and I have no idea how mkreku what you wrote establishes what I asked him to prove, that HGT or HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER has occured between humans and DNA from what we eat. I have never seen anyone defend the statement that GE foods pose a risk due to the risk of detrimental HGT events to humans. Hence why I thought it would be truely hillarious if Mr Lost up there could have even made an attempt to back up (defend) his statement, which he obviously failed to do because he is clearly full of crap.

[Product of the Cosmos]

i'm sorry if you can't handle the fact that my reality really is reality.

 

lol!!!!!!!!!!!! Fundamental comprehendion we both seem to think the other lacks. Your ego is too big to realize what you may determine reality, is your own determination. Is there really one unified 'real' reality? I wouldn't go as far as saying yes or no for sure.

 

that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

What you cannot understand you are not meant to.

 

Nobody claims to know everything about genetics.

 

Anyone who says GE foods have absolutely no (possible or in action now) negative effect implies they know everything about genetics. Or their reference knows everything about genetics. Simple as that.

 

We just know enough to do what we are currently doing.

 

This is an opinion, and I dissagree with it. But I guess I'm completely fine with it as long as people know what they are eating. There should be a label on the food saying it is GE'd. And the people can choose for themselves. And they get what they deserve through threir own logic of choice. This is not done. So it is not ethical as well as hasty IMO.

 

You don't research a topic to absolute exhaustion before applying it -- that would take forever.

 

One size does not fit all. You have to take into consideration the variables like your human mind is well capable of, when applying how much to investigate something before implementing it into large numbers. Comparing a light bulb to the building blocks of life, is quite a large difference.

 

Do you really think one size fits all in that regard? Do you think the building blocks of life are something to be taken lightly? Or do you think they may be soething you would take more cautiously then most other things....

 

It is not necessary to know every minor detail about a branch of science to develop safe and effective applications of it. The biologists who are doing this are neither madmen nor fools; they know what they are capable of and what they are not.

 

It really depends IMO. Safe? Well, yes, you do need to know every, or at least most, of the details to know it's safe when messing with something of genetic magnitude. Effective? Whole diff story. Sure we can make something effective. And that's where we stand now. We know enough to make it effective, but not know for sure whether or not it's safe.

 

*the bit about cancer*

 

Mutations. heh. Mutations we have a hard time controlling because we are genetic novices. Exactly my point.

 

That's not quite what they are doing. They sell stuff to people -- if you don't like their stuff, don't buy it.

 

Some people don't have a choice. And many don't even know what they are buying. They are not warned often.

 

This won't help them either. There are greater powers in the US than Monsanto and if the latter screws things up with the GM food, these powers will crush them. You just don't mess with people's food...

 

Name them. The greater powers.... Not to say there is not. But I'm curious as to who you are reffering to. But in any event, yes, they ARE messing with our food. lol.

 

*few people saying you dont absorb genetic elements in what you eat*

 

Genetics are the blueprint for the plant/animal. If I made a gene that made something taste better, but caused cancer in 3 years if taken in high doses, are you absorbing the genes? Or are you obsorbing the product of them? Either way. The genes of something effect us.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Unfortunately, Product of the Cosmos is a lost cause.  The only thing this discussion has done is prove that to me.  No matter how much scientific evidence is exposed they will not accept it.  PotC is simply a Stone Deaf (see http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html).  Good luck beating anything into that one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What have I ignored? You mean my opinion differs? If your talking about the journals you have to pay for, screw that. And the person who reffered them didn't answer my plea for quoting the facts found from them..

 

So am I dense for not believing what someone says, and won't even back up with the very facts they say proves me wrong?

 

Did anyone actually buy those journals?!

 

You can't bash an opinion into someone by numbers and call them someone who does not hear for not conforming to the crowd. Just because more people believe something doesn't mean it's right. Bring me undisputable proof and I will look at it surely. But already mine, and anothers opinion differs when it comes to undisputable proof. It seems some people think a scientist writing a report on their findings means thats undisputable...

 

What have we established here?

 

-We dont know for sure what the full effects from GE food is. WHile right now there is no huge negative known effects.

 

-We pretty much know for sure the biggest GE food maker in the world(Monsanto) is not ethical, or concerned about the complete safety of their products(as they said its the FDA's job to ensure the safety of something).

 

-The biggest GE food maker in the world is very closely tied to the process that certifies the food being safe. This speaks leaps and bounds in itself... Are there GE methods that are completely safe out there? IMO sure. Are the GE mtheods that are unsafe, or products of such that would be negative? IMO sure as well. Taking out the certifying process is not smart IMO. Who wouldn't certify their own product.... lol.

[Judge Hades]

Well, since we have geneitcally engineered plants and animals for food for centuries I am sure we would have found out what negative effect there are. Now you will bring up some stupid crap about human GE through wife selecting even though that has absolutely nothing to do with food. Since you are too dense to understand what genetic engineering is and its many forms that it may take why should any intelligent person have a civil discourse with you on this matter.

 

Grow a clue or go away.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Hades as I said, and will have to repeat agian. There are different methods of GE'd food. The ones we have done for centuries is equivalent to how we pick a mate. I'm not sure why you can't see that. Sure we don't eat our mate, but the process is the same. Pick what you like and produce with it. Now if we designed our babies genetics, that would be the equivalent to the methods I'm speaking of being iffy.

[Judge Hades]

No, it is not, but continue to live in your fantasy world.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Very convincing arguement you got there hades. You seem to never want to explain your position...

[Althernai]

Nobody claims to know everything about genetics.

 

Anyone who says GE foods have absolutely no (possible or in action now) negative effect implies they know everything about genetics. Or their reference knows everything about genetics. Simple as that.

 

Which is why nobody says that. Scientists would never make a statement that absolute. What is generally said sounds more like "We have tested q, r and s with these methods and we have found no negative effects." After enough of these studies are conducted, more theoretically inclined people draw the conclusion "In view of studies x, y and z we can conclude that this particular thing is indistinguishable from the control (unmodified foods) within this margin." You can never be absolutely sure, but after this is done enough times, there is reasonable certainty.

 

One size does not fit all.  You have to take into consideration the variables like your human mind is well capable of, when applying how much to investigate something before implementing it into large numbers.  Comparing a light bulb to the building blocks of life, is quite a large difference.

 

Correct. Which is why the people who made the lightbulb just built it and distributed it without any studies except maybe on whether it cause fires or something whereas the genetic engineers pay millions for studies (or these millions are paid by taxpayers) to check whether each product they introduce is safe.

 

It really depends IMO.  Safe?  Well, yes, you do need to know every, or at least most, of the details to know it's safe when messing with something of genetic magnitude.  Effective?  Whole diff story.  Sure we can make something effective.  And that's where we stand now.  We know enough to make it effective, but not know for sure whether or not it's safe.

 

You seem to be treating genetics almost as if it were a religion. It is not. It's a science just like most other sciences. If anything, it is tested for safety a lot more than virtually anything else. As I said before, it is not wise to ask cutting edge researchers to tread lightly. Such people are by nature risk takers; you have to be to discover or create anything significant. So, we don't know with 100% certainty that it is safe. But we are reasonably certain and hence we go ahead anyway.

 

Mutations.  heh.  Mutations we have a hard time controlling because we are genetic novices.  Exactly my point.

 

Nope. We know what causes these mutations and we know how to prevent them. The problem is that preventing them involves giving up a large number of things that people don't want to give up (among them, exposure to the sun). All our knowledge about mutations is useless when people don't (or can't) take advice on what not to do (e.g. don't smoke, limit time in the sun, avoid pollution).

 

Name them.  The greater powers....  Not to say there is not.  But I'm curious as to who you are reffering to.  But in any event, yes, they ARE messing with our food. lol.

 

Halliburton for one. Monsanto has nothing on the military-industrial complex and most of the people who comprise this group eat the same food as everyone else. Even if you assume the top of the chain is not affected (they eat better food), getting 10%+ of one's employees sick at once will make them very, very angry.

[Althernai]

Hades as I said, and will have to repeat agian.  There are different methods of GE'd food.  The ones we have done for centuries is equivalent to how we pick a mate.

 

No, it is not. Even if you buy the theory that humans pick mates the same way animals do (i.e. unconsciously selecting the best available specimen to mix genes with) -- and this is highly debatable -- it is still not the same. When such an unconscious choice is made, the decision rests on the sum total of all genetic factors. Nothing specific is involved; people don't go around selecting mates with thoughts like "I'm a fast runner; she is a fast runner. Therefore, our children are likely to be fast runners and this is makes her a good candidate." We may (unconsciously) aim for the best overall set of traits, but not for any particular one.

 

With selective breeding on the other hand (what we have done for centuries), we do exactly the above selection of particular traits. If you want a fast greyhound or horse, you take two that are fast and have them mate. Repeat several hundred times using offspring, and you have some really fast animals. Their other genes may not be optimized at all (they might have some diseases or something of the sort), but at least they are fast. You can then take the fast horses and select the strongest of them and breed them for strength. The result may or may not be as fast as before, but they will also be strong. Similarly, eaten birds can be bred for size and so on. In each case, we are aiming to get a particular characteristic rather than the overall set -- often at the expense of the overall set.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Hades as I said, and will have to repeat agian.  There are different methods of GE'd food.  The ones we have done for centuries is equivalent to how we pick a mate.

 

No, it is not. Even if you buy the theory that humans pick mates the same way animals do (i.e. unconsciously selecting the best available specimen to mix genes with) -- and this is highly debatable -- it is still not the same. When such an unconscious choice is made, the decision rests on the sum total of all genetic factors. Nothing specific is involved; people don't go around selecting mates with thoughts like "I'm a fast runner; she is a fast runner. Therefore, our children are likely to be fast runners and this is makes her a good candidate." We may (unconsciously) aim for the best overall set of traits, but not for any particular one.

 

With selective breeding on the other hand (what we have done for centuries), we do exactly the above selection of particular traits. If you want a fast greyhound or horse, you take two that are fast and have them mate. Repeat several hundred times using offspring, and you have some really fast animals. Their other genes may not be optimized at all (they might have some diseases or something of the sort), but at least they are fast. You can then take the fast horses and select the strongest of them and breed them for strength. The result may or may not be as fast as before, but they will also be strong. Similarly, eaten birds can be bred for size and so on. In each case, we are aiming to get a particular characteristic rather than the overall set -- often at the expense of the overall set.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We consciously, and subconcsiously IMO pick a mate. We ussually are more attracted to the more fit, plus we take into account the projection of self through clothes, personality, and so on... success, teeth, money, so many things. What do you think the Monarchs do? What do you think Monarchs have done for ages?

 

Same things different acceleration of life spans. We as humans tend to think of ourselves so above everything else. A weakness IMO.

 

whereas the genetic engineers pay millions for studies (or these millions are paid by taxpayers) to check whether each product they introduce is safe.

 

As we have seen in the past. Many of these tests are not completed correctly when it comes to things harming us.. Like prescription drugs. Maybe they are safe. But maybe we are subjecting millions, possibly billions of people, to be harmed in an unknown way. And with corps like Monsanto at the top of the industry it doesn't exactly assure these things are in safe hands IMO.

 

 

For example:

 

Although banned in Europe, atrazine, a dangerous corn pesticide linked to cancer and endocrine disruption, continues to be used on millions of acres of farm land across the U.S. While environmental organizations have long lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the toxic chemical, biotech giant Syngenta, the producer of atrazine, has enlisted former Republican vice-president Bob Dole as a spokesperson for atrazine. Atrazine has recently gained further bad press due to studies showing that it causes deformities in frogs. In addition, Syngenta has recently sunk over a quarter of a million dollars into lobbying the EPA to keep the pesticide legal. The EPA has responded by re-registering atrazine as legal and safe.

 

Which is why nobody says that.

 

lol. Tell that to some people in this thread...

 

You seem to be treating genetics almost as if it were a religion. It is not. It's a science just like most other sciences. If anything, it is tested for safety a lot more than virtually anything else. As I said before, it is not wise to ask cutting edge researchers to tread lightly. Such people are by nature risk takers; you have to be to discover or create anything significant. So, we don't know with 100% certainty that it is safe. But we are reasonably certain and hence we go ahead anyway.

 

Profit makers are not exactly in the same light as researchers. They research enough to make a profit.

 

Taking a quote directly from Monsanto:

 

"Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

 

Their goal is obviously not learning, it's making a profit. And funny you bring up religion. I am by no means religious in a modern sense. I reject religion strongly. It is another business I see as negative in many ways. But 'playing God' just seems naive at this point. Not to say what we have learned is not an accomplishment. I am just conservative by nature, when it comes to my own nature. lol. This coming from a 'liberal'... lol. Labels... Anyway, odd to me someone like Bush who is supposedly majorly religious doesn't contest 'playing God' with genetics... But is opposed to stem cell research...

 

Nope. We know what causes these mutations and we know how to prevent them. The problem is that preventing them involves giving up a large number of things that people don't want to give up (among them, exposure to the sun). All our knowledge about mutations is useless when people don't (or can't) take advice on what not to do (e.g. don't smoke, limit time in the sun, avoid pollution).

 

My point was if we are so sure we know a lot about genetics, how about just develop an organism that eats cancer then dies. Something of that sort.

 

Halliburton for one. Monsanto has nothing on the military-industrial complex and most of the people who comprise this group eat the same food as everyone else. Even if you assume the top of the chain is not affected (they eat better food), getting 10%+ of one's employees sick at once will make them very, very angry.

 

lol. Would be an inetresting finding. How about asking Halliburton employees to eat only genetically modified foods for a full year. Or even a week. I wonder what they would say... I place a high possibility they would look at you like the politicians MMoore asked to sign their kids up for the military and fight in Iraq. lol...

[Product of the Cosmos]

lol More on this issue from a WIDE array of sources:

 

The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) describes itself as 'a private non-profit non-advocacy research organization'. However, an article in the science journal Nature

describes NCFAP as 'a pro-GM industry group' and, looking at the invariably industry-supporting claims emerging out of NCFAP studies, it may seem difficult to be certain where research ends and advocacy begins.

 

WASHINGTON,DC (US) /BRUSSELS (BELGIUM), November 16, 2004-

[Weiser_Cain]

I repeat. You don't absorb random genetic material from the things you eat.

[Judge Hades]

Very convincing arguement you got there hades.  You seem to never want to explain your position...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I shouldn't have to explain what is common sense and is in grade school biology texts.

[mkreku]

I repeat. You don't absorb random genetic material from the things you eat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Problem is, this is what they want us to prove (with scientific reports). It's like having to prove 1+1=2.. Some common knowledge is so widely accepted it's difficult to find the research behind it. Of course, that makes it so much easier to attack which seems to suit those who oppose GM-food perfectly..

[deganawida]

Y'all are aware of what you're doing when you respond to PotC, right? PotC is not a person; its a burgeoning AI program developed by some ex-cultist computer programmers in Washington State who missed their comet several years ago, and they decided to put it through a modified Turing test. Unfortunately, it fails miserably to pass as a thinking human intelligence, hence its nonsensical statements and inability to cope with objective reality.

[Althernai]

I repeat. You don't absorb random genetic material from the things you eat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Problem is, this is what they want us to prove (with scientific reports). It's like having to prove 1+1=2.. Some common knowledge is so widely accepted it's difficult to find the research behind it. Of course, that makes it so much easier to attack which seems to suit those who oppose GM-food perfectly..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure what there is to prove. You don't become more chicken-like by eating chicken nor more like a cornstalk by eating corn. It is obvious simply from the sheer variety of diets around the world. Or are they referring to some other phenomenon?

[newc0253]

Y'all are aware of what you're doing when you respond to PotC, right?  PotC is not a person; its a burgeoning AI program developed by some ex-cultist computer programmers in Washington State who missed their comet several years ago, and they decided to put it through a modified Turing test.

i think this might also explain volourn...