GMOs: This is World War III- It Just Isn't Labeled

[Slowvehicle]

Upon further introspection, I'm truly sorry if I have offended you personally.

Peter Valentino

My Dear Mr. Valentino:

You have not managed to rise to the level of "offending" me. The "quote" function is your friend...notice that the post you quote was directed, in humor, at Cosmic Yak; it was no more than me acting the jackanapes to the Yak's suggestion that a particular collective noun was not "manly" enough for Vikings.

Action wordplay is a thing.

For Science!

Through it all, I remain

Faithfully yours, &ct.

 

[madurobob]

I can see the points made by Marplots and Ladewig but lack the biology knowledge to differentiate between them and determine which is right can anyone else add to this discussion?

This might be of some value versus the nonsense Papamundi has been slinging about.

I'm a simple layman myself. But, I'd hazard to say they are both right.

That is, all life on earth developed from some small set of single cell organisms. So, with lots of time, random mutation of the same single cell life form led to the daffodil and the sabre tooth tiger. In this sense, *all* life on earth is GMO. It has been genetically modified from the original life form.

But, while its certainly *possible* to use traditional techniques to GM a plant to have a specific trait like glyphosate resistance, its impractical. Sort of the proverbial infinite monkey theorem. We have modern genetic tools that allow us to splice in the specific gene sequence we want to give us glyphosate resistance without having to wait for the monkeys to do their thing (and deal with the billions of known and unknown mistakes they make along the way). While this is the next natural step in plant/animal modification it is fundamentally different than selective breeding/hybridization because we can target specific gene sequences while leaving everything else alone.

I'd argue this is safer than traditional hybridization techniques because it only makes one change and we know exactly what that change is; pretty much the opposite of traditional methods. But, I have to admit that it is a change that is *extremely* unlikely to have occurred using any traditional technique, and thus is something that should not just be lumped in with the processes that led to the myriad life forms on earth today by calling them all "GMO".

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
I'd argue this is safer than traditional hybridization techniques because it only makes one change and we know exactly what that change is; pretty much the opposite of traditional methods. But, I have to admit that it is a change that is *extremely* unlikely to have occurred using any traditional technique, and thus is something that should not just be lumped in with the processes that led to the myriad life forms on earth today by calling them all "GMO".

I agree with this, but don't see it as a distinction of merit.

Genetic modification by evolution (and I'll include tradition breeding here) is driven by selection pressures. This is not the case with GMOs. However, introduced genetic variation still has to "play well" with whatever evolution has in the mix. There's an intracellular environment to consider.

Here's another way to look at it. Suppose I (and my bad-assed terrorist cell) wanted to make something overtly toxic - maybe a dog breed that expressed a deadly protein (ricin?) in its saliva. I can't imagine how one would even go about it.

What seems to be on offer here is a kind of fear of the unknown and black swan events. Sometimes it's coupled with a general distrust of science or amoral corporate profiteering. This may be justified, but seems to rely on those in the field not being aware of the problems. I think this attitude, insofar as it isn't a straw man, is shallow-minded.

One further irritation: GMOs should not be evaluated as a class (or a technique) any more than chemistry should be. Sure, the same lab that makes cheap vitamins can make deadly neurotoxins, but it is a mistake to think organic chemistry is "evil." Instead, we ought to look at how GMOs can be evaluated for safety on an individual product basis.

 

[madurobob]

I agree with this, but don't see it as a distinction of merit.[\quote]
I understand your point. However, I'd suggest society has made it a distinction of merit whether you agree or not. This is where the line has been drawn. As soon as it becomes manipulation of specific genes it is something that requires a lab and millions of dollars as opposed to an experiment anyone can do in their garage or garden. So, its not *traditional* and folks become wary and want to give it a different name to differentiate it from the *traditional* techniques. Its human nature.

 

[marplots]

I understand your point. However, I'd suggest society has made it a distinction of merit whether you agree or not. This is where the line has been drawn. As soon as it becomes manipulation of specific genes it is something that requires a lab and millions of dollars as opposed to an experiment anyone can do in their garage or garden. So, its not *traditional* and folks become wary and want to give it a different name to differentiate it from the *traditional* techniques. Its human nature.

What will be cool is when gene therapy really starts taking off. We can hand out buttons to patients: "I'm a GMO"

 

[dudalb]

No thread about the Knights of Malta is complete without this:

.........



The stuff that dreams are made of...and Dashell Hamett's fiction about the Knights of Malta is a billion times better then what papamundi has given us

 

[Hans]

What will be cool is when gene therapy really starts taking off. We can hand out buttons to patients: "I'm a GMO"

I suspect as that technology becomes available 'everyone' will be against it while parents do it not only to eliminate dangerous defects but also to 'improve' the child to make them smarter, big, better looking, etc. I suspect also that what is deemed 'inferior' but not medically dangerous will be modified also, like skin shade, eye color, etc

 

[madurobob]

What will be cool is when gene therapy really starts taking off. We can hand out buttons to patients: "I'm a GMO"

Then they wouldn't let that patient into Whole Foods.

A bit of a win/win for the patient...

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I suspect as that technology becomes available 'everyone' will be against it while parents do it not only to eliminate dangerous defects but also to 'improve' the child to make them smarter, big, better looking, etc. I suspect also that what is deemed 'inferior' but not medically dangerous will be modified also, like skin shade, eye color, etc

Let's start with colorblindness. We could eliminate it from the human genome forever. It serves no purpose. It conveys no unique advantage. It's well known where it is and the non-impaired variant is available from the parents.

 

[Wayward son]

But, while its certainly *possible* to use traditional techniques to GM a plant to have a specific trait like glyphosate resistance, its impractical. Sort of the proverbial infinite monkey theorem.

It is not just possible, it has been done repeatedly.

Glyphosate resistant tobacco, carrots and potatoes had all been created in the late 70s/early 80s. All long before the GM ones. The set of simple processes had been used to create resistance to carbamates, dupyridylium, phenoxy, picloram, atrazine and amitrol.

For instance they subjected carrot suspension cell cultures to a small amount of glyphosate and then repeatedly subcultured it with increasing doses. Then they generated whole plants from those cell cultures and then field trials which showed that they were resistant to glyphosate.

GM technology, however, works much better, faster and without the unintended effects.

But if GMOs were banned tomorrow, farmers who currently grow HT-GMOs would simply switch to HT-non-GMOs, as is the case in Europe (and for crops for which no GMOs have yet to be approved). BASF's non-GMO HT "clearfield" range of products alone covers significantly more varieties of crops then Monsanto's GMO HT range of products. And the despite the former being created through a more risky method they face none of the regulatory roadblocks (except in Canada) that GMOs face.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

My Dear Mr. Valentino:

You have not managed to rise to the level of "offending" me. The "quote" function is your friend...notice that the post you quote was directed, in humor, at Cosmic Yak; it was no more than me acting the jackanapes to the Yak's suggestion that a particular collective noun was not "manly" enough for Vikings.

Action wordplay is a thing.

For Science!

Through it all, I remain

Faithfully yours, &ct.

Don't worry, I got the joke.
I didn't answer only because I have no idea what Bleeks is, and didn't want to admit it.
Now, alas, I have to come clean.
What is "Bleeks", and do I have any chance of beating you at it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Don't worry, I got the joke.
I didn't answer only because I have no idea what Bleeks is, and didn't want to admit it.
Now, alas, I have to come clean.
What is "Bleeks", and do I have any chance of beating you at it?

My Esteemed Mr. Grunniens (how ya doin, bos?):

Spend not a moment's worry on it. I know that you (its intended audience) got the joke.

The "Match Game of Bleeks" is the spiritual antecedent to FizzBin, or Calvinball. It was a game spawned in Blake's Bar (and polished by Walt Kelly) when it was the preferred hangout of the New York Herald-Trib writers and cartoonists. It was a game designed to exclude "outsiders"; the only rules were that the stranger lost. The key was "Match Game": it could be matching dice throws, matching drink consumption, liar's poker, dollar bill poker, displays of mentalist feats, feats of strength, or even RPS; whatever the stranger could not do (or did not do, in the face of changing rules). The house was in on it; the beat cops were in on it; it was (mostly) played as a lighthearted hazing ritual.

So, no, you have no chance of beating me at the "Match Game" of Bleeks. In fact, you lost, just by asking; but I shall be magnanimous: your forfeit is a virtual round for the House next Whitsunday (or Michelmas, if the date is more convenient).

Next time you're in the New Mexico High Desert, let me know--the first wee dram's on me.

 

[Ladewig]

Thank you for the responses.

They do provide more evidence that genetic modifications to food are not equivalent to WW III.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

So, no, you have no chance of beating me at the "Match Game" of Bleeks. In fact, you lost, just by asking; but I shall be magnanimous: your forfeit is a virtual round for the House next Whitsunday (or Michelmas, if the date is more convenient).

Next time you're in the New Mexico High Desert, let me know--the first wee dram's on me.

I salute your magnanimity in allowing me to lose a rigged game...wait- what?

Should I ever return to your side of the pond, I will certainly take you up on that offer.

 

[papamundi]

Why are you so willing to die?

I remember listening to a success tape years ago (when there were tapes) and the speaker talked about a South American tribe who were building disease elements into their huts. The speaker was confounded by why they would continue to do this ancient an archaic practice even though it had been proven to them that it caused disease.

It's because of something in us as humans that will systematize something that seemingly works and use it on and on for millennia without changing. It’s the system that is important, not the person. Even though GMOs have only been around 20 years, there is still this conservatism with people, where they will eat them without even looking into it because they are told to do so by their television sets. The TV declares the system, and you blindly follow it.

I have not heard a single person say that it is good to eat GMOs because they are good for you. All I've heard is that it's good to eat GMOs and to make sure everybody else does, because it is for the greater good. You have been programmed to throw your own life away in order to support "society" or the "greater good." This is the folly of our era. Kill the individual and keep the social order. This is the basis of fascism.

The people who think this way may think that they are socialists. They are actually National Socialists, Nazis. It is only a Nazi mentality that would insist on foisting poison upon the individual and therefore abridging their rights as given in our Constitution. If you don't think GMOs are bad for you, it is because you have not looked into it. These are not hybrids like boysenberries and broccoli, which came about through selective breeding. GMOs are a different beast all together.

And if you are truly concerned about the greater good, it seems to me that you would be concerned about the environment itself since we as a "society" live in the environment together, and it is in our cumulative best interest to make sure that it is safe. Monsanto, with their GMO farming, kills bees, birds, butterflies and many beneficial things. They have also killed children who eat them.

Next time you feed GMOs to your children, why don't you disclose to them that this food may not be good for them, but it is for the greater good. They are sacrificing their lives, but try to convince them that it will be better for everybody. Why don't you see what they say? Don't they have rights, too?

Dare to be Free,
Peter Valentino

 

[The Greater Fool]

Being afraid of ghosts does not make them real, nor anything to warn others about.

 

[dudalb]

I remember listening to a success tape years ago (when there were tapes) and the speaker talked about a South American tribe who were building disease elements into their huts. The speaker was confounded by why they would continue to do this ancient an archaic practice even though it had been proven to them that it caused disease.

It's because of something in us as humans that will systematize something that seemingly works and use it on and on for millennia without changing. It’s the system that is important, not the person. Even though GMOs have only been around 20 years, there is still this conservatism with people, where they will eat them without even looking into it because they are told to do so by their television sets. The TV declares the system, and you blindly follow it.

I have not heard a single person say that it is good to eat GMOs because they are good for you. All I've heard is that it's good to eat GMOs and to make sure everybody else does, because it is for the greater good. You have been programmed to throw your own life away in order to support "society" or the "greater good." This is the folly of our era. Kill the individual and keep the social order. This is the basis of fascism.

The people who think this way may think that they are socialists. They are actually National Socialists, Nazis. It is only a Nazi mentality that would insist on foisting poison upon the individual and therefore abridging their rights as given in our Constitution. If you don't think GMOs are bad for you, it is because you have not looked into it. These are not hybrids like boysenberries and broccoli, which came about through selective breeding. GMOs are a different beast all together.

And if you are truly concerned about the greater good, it seems to me that you would be concerned about the environment itself since we as a "society" live in the environment together, and it is in our cumulative best interest to make sure that it is safe. Monsanto, with their GMO farming, kills bees, birds, butterflies and many beneficial things. They have also killed children who eat them.

Next time you feed GMOs to your children, why don't you disclose to them that this food may not be good for them, but it is for the greater good. They are sacrificing their lives, but try to convince them that it will be better for everybody. Why don't you see what they say? Don't they have rights, too?

Dare to be Free,
Peter Valentino

Please furnish proof that GMO's are automatically harmful to human beings.

 

[madurobob]

And if you are truly concerned about the greater good, it seems to me that you would be concerned about the environment itself since we as a "society" live in the environment together, and it is in our cumulative best interest to make sure that it is safe.

Exactly. GMOs lead to a lower total pesticide load and a higher crop yield. Thus they are better for the environment and that is part of why they are better - HEALTHIER - for the greater good as well as for individuals.
For instance:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Next time you feed GMOs to your children, why don't you disclose to them that this food may not be good for them, but it is for the greater good. They are sacrificing their lives, but try to convince them that it will be better for everybody. Why don't you see what they say? Don't they have rights, too?

So, you are saying I should lie to my kids. Got it.

Dare to educate yourself

 

[Slowvehicle]

I remember listening to a success tape years ago (when there were tapes) and the speaker talked about a South American tribe who were building disease elements into their huts. The speaker was confounded by why they would continue to do this ancient an archaic practice even though it had been proven to them that it caused disease.

It's because of something in us as humans that will systematize something that seemingly works and use it on and on for millennia without changing. It’s the system that is important, not the person. Even though GMOs have only been around 20 years, there is still this conservatism with people, where they will eat them without even looking into it because they are told to do so by their television sets. The TV declares the system, and you blindly follow it.

My Dear Mr. Valentino:

Despite your Godwinning the thread, and your one-note samba about "TV" (add my name to the list of people who do not own a television; and who find your dependence upon YouTube ironic...), there are a few things in this screed of yours that ought not to go unremarked upon.

I have not heard a single person say that it is good to eat GMOs because they are good for you.

Perhaps it is because you are not listening; your own chorus fills your ears exclusively.

All I've heard is that it's good to eat GMOs and to make sure everybody else does, because it is for the greater good.

Do be so kind as to provide a link to anyone saying this, here on this thread where you have spread your screed. Actual links, there's a lad...

You have been programmed to throw your own life away in order to support "society" or the "greater good." This is the folly of our era. Kill the individual and keep the social order. This is the basis of fascism.

Do be so kind as to support this claim, again with actual links.

The people who think this way may think that they are socialists.

Do be so kind as to support this bit, also (and don't forget the actual links, O best belovéd).

They are actually National Socialists, Nazis. It is only a Nazi mentality that would insist on foisting poison upon the individual and therefore abridging their rights as given in our Constitution.

Do be so good as to support both these claims. Links, etc.

If you don't think GMOs are bad for you, it is because you have not looked into it. These are not hybrids like boysenberries and broccoli, which came about through selective breeding. GMOs are a different beast all together.

...evidence? (You know the drill...or you ought to, by now...)

And if you are truly concerned about the greater good, it seems to me that you would be concerned about the environment itself since we as a "society" live in the environment together, and it is in our cumulative best interest to make sure that it is safe. Monsanto, with their GMO farming, kills bees, birds, butterflies and many beneficial things. They have also killed children who eat them.

I am sorry--you must have overlooked the links I offered you about CCD in bees. Too busy trying to poach a joke, I suspect. you have a bit of reading to do.

And, of course, you have many more claims to support (unless you really do think that your unsupported assertions somehow create reality).

Next time you feed GMOs to your children, why don't you disclose to them that this food may not be good for them, but it is for the greater good. They are sacrificing their lives, but try to convince them that it will be better for everybody. Why don't you see what they say? Don't they have rights, too?

Unsupported assumptions in legions. Make with the evidence, if you would.

Dare to be Free,
Peter Valentino

(insert exploding irony meter)

I, for one, would love to see you back up even one of your rantings with actual, practical, non-anecdotal, empirical, testable, objective evidence. Any time you choose to do so would be nice...

I remain,

patiently (and factually) yours, &ct.

 

[Kid Eager]

No thread about the Knights of Malta is complete without this:

.........[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1884053764cf1e5ded.jpg[/qimg]



The stuff that dreams are made of...and Dashell Hamett's fiction about the Knights of Malta is a billion times better then what papamundi has given us

What, a penguin? (probably a GMO one, so it's patiently waiting to kill you. Especially if you eat it.)