|
|
Post by desertwoman on Aug 19, 2015 9:50:43 GMT -5
It is all political and monetary. yup |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 10:05:26 GMT -5
I would eat just about anything if I was starving to death. I think you all are just to used to living in a country that has easy access to food. When you are truly starving you will eat what you can get and not care about the long term. I have been homeless and hungry in my youth and know what true hunger feels like. NOt "oh I could eat a horse" hungry but "man that rotten food at the bottom of this dumpster looks great" hungry. I can only imagine what kids in third world countries must be going through to be that hungry their entire lives. Yes most GMOs made by companies that only care about profit but not all GMOs are bad (although the majority are bad). It's science and it can be done in a good way. Its not a black and white issue just as brownrexx said. |
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Aug 19, 2015 13:29:54 GMT -5
The only good thing I see is an attempt to feed millions. That has zero to do with GMOs. But I disagree that all GMOs are good rather bad in every aspect there is. It causes polluted waters, suffering, debilitating illnesses, alters the ever-giving earth, kills bees and probably other beneficial insects, causes increase use of pesticides....what am I leaving out here., probably causes cancer too. There just has to be a better way of achieving the same purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 13:54:05 GMT -5
It's not as simple as "GMOs are bad". Yes that's technically true but it is also a simplistic way of looking at it. GMOs that cause more poisons to be used are bad 100%.. GMOs that are made by only splicing genes from plants may not be so bad. that's just a more technologically advanced way of selective breeding. It is when you introduce genes from a virus or bacteria into a plant that the problem occurs.
Look at the original strain of corn before it went through generations of selective breeding. You would not recognize it because we modified the genetics of the plant with selection. That's what some GMOs are.. Selecting the genes you want to be active in your plant but it's done in a lab not a field. I just want you all to realize that the term GMO in itself is not bad but the way most companies are making the GMOs is. It can be done safely and can benefit the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Aug 19, 2015 14:36:13 GMT -5
I disagree again...selective breeding is not a form of gmos. But I do understand what you are trying to say. Selective breeding doesn't affect human genes.
Definition of a GMO: An organism whose genetic characteristics have been altered by the insertion of a modified gene or a gene from another organism using the techniques of genetic engineering.
(http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/genetically+modified+organism)
GMOs do affect human genes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 15:32:49 GMT -5
I didn't say selective breeding is a form of GMOs. I said that we modified the genetics of plants with selection. That statement is a scientific fact. We made new strains of corn (any many other things) that would never have existed in nature without selective breeding done by humans. We modified the genetics to fit our needs, it just took a very long time to do so.
You are correct about the definition of a GMO but it can be done through a variety of methods. Some methods are not safe such as using a virus or bacteria to splice the genes. If however you use a straight plant to plant splicing method it will not have the same negative results. An example would be adding CBD (an active chemical in cannabis) to something like carrots or tomatoes so medical patients didn't have to smoke. You are simply combining one plant with another and not introducing foreign genetics of a non plant species. It actually gets quite scientific and hard to understand but I like to have all the facts so I spend hours researching this stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Aug 19, 2015 16:24:19 GMT -5
Look at the original strain of corn before it went through generations of selective breeding. You would not recognize it because we modified the genetics of the plant with selection. That's what some GMOs are.. Selecting the genes you want to be active in your plant I sounds like you are saying that! And you are not altering the genes in selective breeding. In a simplified form the plant has a choice of which genes are available to it, not altering the makeup of any gene. As in a human gene, when a child is formed the genes of which parent will become expressed? There is a choice of genes from each parent. GMOs change the gene from within. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 17:10:20 GMT -5
I'm just saying that its similar. In both cases you are making the plant do something that would not happen in nature. It is possible to make a safe GMO would be my main point. I'm not on the side of GMOs I just have to acknowledge the good as well as the bad. Hopefully in the future corporations wont be running things and we can eliminate the bad and invasive ones so people that need them can use them.
|
|
|
|
Post by desertwoman on Aug 19, 2015 17:49:51 GMT -5
Hopefully in the future corporations wont be running things and we can eliminate the bad and invasive ones so people that need them can use them. The point I'm trying to make is that people don't need them. And should never need them. When the political and financial equation is removed there is plenty of food The argument that GMO's will save the starving people is not founded on truth. I hear where you are coming from. Your life on the streets was a hard one. But GMOs weren't going to feed you any better as a homeless person. No one should starve and no one needs to on this planet, in this day and age. The only reason people are starving- anywhere on this Earth- is political. |
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Aug 19, 2015 19:10:46 GMT -5
It is possible to make a safe GMO would be my main point. I disagree with you. I don't see scientifically how that is possible. I do agree with, desert.... safe practices being followed there should be no reason gmos are needed at all. |
|
|
|
Post by claude on Aug 19, 2015 19:23:59 GMT -5
I remember watching Dr,schiff on a podcast, speaking about the increases in autism...some of the common health problems these children share are leaky gut syndrome.
The reason roundup was approved was because it was GAAS...it was GAAS because M said in its studies that it could not cross from plant to human...so the use of Bt would eliminate the corn worms...Bt corn is eaten by the pest and the Bt causes the pests stomach to explode and the caterpillar dies.. Dr.S studies found that the roundup does indeed cross over from plant to human using the gut ..it effects hormones...brain development. It was a sobering talk.
If you look at the increases in autism on a chart ite graph of increase looks identical to the increase in the sales and use of roundup.
Now, M announces that it will select the pest...and turn off genes causing pests..specific ones, to die. We do not live in a bubble..what we do affects others and our environment.
If I were raising children or planning to get pregnant I would only eat organically...and my child would only eat organically..including the cotton clothes that they wear (cotton is the #1dirtiest crop a/f/a chemicals) even doing that, if we were to be tested today we would still have roundup trace elements in our bodies due to runoff and pollution of our water and soils.
There is a movement in the Midwest sponsored by farmers where they no longer till and use compost..their soil holds water and nutrients and replenishes itself..negating the need for synthetic fertilizers. Yields of crops are superior. The other farmers thought he was crazy..but when drought struck..the no till guy continued to product amazing yields while other farmers fields dried up and crops dried up.
When I see how wonderfully productive my garden is...and I use compost, some manure and mulch and virtually no other products..I am a believer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 19:39:00 GMT -5
What is the problem with science? I just feel as if you all are commenting based on your views and opinions and I'm trying to have a fact based discussion. Did you know their are natural "GMOs" not made in a lab but made by nature? I bet not because you only see one side. Their is a virus that infects trees and inserts itself into the genetics of the tree and alters it forming a symbiotic relationship.
What is the problem with altering the genetics of a plant in a SAFE way and testing it properly before releasing it? I'm not sayin eliminate heirlooms or anything crazy I'm just saying the GMOs can be good if done correctly. Yes their are other ways to feed the world but this could be the cheapest, easiest, and most effective. You can doubt me and say its not true but then you would just be in denial of the established and agreed upon scientific facts and in that case this conversation is a lost cause.
I'm sorry if this subject upsets anyone but you have to look at the facts and know the science if you're going to argue for a cause. I think GMOs (as they are now) should be banned and products already containing them should be labeled but I am not ignorant to the fact that they CAN be good
|
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Aug 19, 2015 20:22:23 GMT -5
Where is it said that this is upsetting. It is a discussion. Just because we do not agree doesn't mean it is upsetting. What is upsetting is that you are telling me my position is based on opinion not science. There is nothing I have said based on supposition. I am a very scientific person and science is the basis for my views. Perhaps it is you who is making supposition here. Maybe it is you who are feeling upset.
The mere definition of the term does not match some of the implications you are stating. What the science is saying presently is that it is not safe to change the genes. If something is done differently in the future science will bear that out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 21:13:00 GMT -5
I didn't think you were getting upset peapicker. I was just making a general statement incase someone thought I was attacking their views. All I'm saying is GMOs are not 100% bad.. Ever known someone with diabetes? "Genetically engineered products are not new. Insulin used in medicine is an example of genetic engineering; the insulin gene from the intestines of pigs is inserted into bacteria. The bacterium grows and produces insulin; this insulin is then purified and used for medical purposes. Thyroid hormones, until recently was derived only from animals, now the hormone can be cultured from bacteria. Other genetically engineered products include the chemical Aspartame used in sugar free foods, and the drug hepatitis B vaccine." Check out the full article www.bt.ucsd.edu/gmo.html |
|
|
|
Post by desertwoman on Aug 20, 2015 0:27:08 GMT -5
I'm not upset. I have the right to my views as do you. What has caught my attention is that, from the beginning of this discussion you have wanted your point to be the "right" one and we all disagree with your point. Does that make us less scientifically based in our view or knowledge? No. . You can doubt me and say its not true but then you would just be in denial of the established and agreed upon scientific facts and in that case this conversation is a lost cause. I do, however, resent you implying that any of us with a different point of view is in denial of scientific facts and simply voicing an opinion. That is ill spoken. Science is a work in progress, it does not pretend to know everything, it is not always absolute. You are trying to have this discussion based on some scientific facts that you've read and have deemed to be The Truth. A good scientist would not do that. A good scientist understands there is always more to learn. You say your views are based on science. But there are many schools of science and some scientists disagree with one another strongly. So I continue to see your arguments as your point of view based on scientific articles that you resonate with. Please, just don't tell us we are in denial of science and don't dismiss the conversation as a lost cause simply because we don't agree with you. It's only a lost cause if you are attached to being "right". How sad that would be. We may all end up agreeing to disagree, but it is never a lost cause to have a spirited exchange of thoughts and ideas when done with respect. |
|
