Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Closed Thread  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-22-2013, 09:42 AM   #871 (permalink)
EcoModding Alien Observer
 
suspectnumber961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I flitter here and there
Posts: 547

highcountryexplorer - '86 Nissan 720 KC 4x4 ST with fiberglass cap
90 day: 21.78 mpg (US)

Elroy - '03 Ford Focus ZX3 w/Zetec DOHC engine
90 day: 32.89 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 78 Times in 65 Posts
GMO study vindicated....

New European food safety guidelines affirm methodology, findings of Seralini's GM corn lab rat study


"After vehemently criticizing a researcher's groundbreaking study and inappropriately calling into question the validity of his rigorous scientific research methods, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has made a surprising about-face. According to new reports, the agency recently vindicated Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini's published paper on the long-term health damage caused by eating Monsanto's genetically-modified (GM) NK603 corn, affirming that the study is, in fact, valid.

As reported by GMOSeralini.org, the EFSA's indirect approval of Prof. Seralini's study comes as the agency issues new guidelines for how long-term feeding studies are to be conducted in the European Union (EU) moving forward. Believe it or not, the EFSA, which is essentially Europe's version of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is modeling these guidelines after the very same ones that Prof. Seralini used to show that GMOs cause organ failure and cancer."

...

Meanwhile...in the US...GMOs are basically promoted by the Whitehouse...for your eating pleasure. Except that the Prez eats organic...LET THEM EAT GMOs.

...

__________________
Carry on humans...we are extremely proud of you. ..................

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. GALLUP POLL
 
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-22-2013, 03:09 PM   #872 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 15,249
Thanks: 3,857
Thanked 5,080 Times in 4,045 Posts
There exist people who, when a new GMO crop is announced, will eliminate that entire category from their diet. Because adequate labeling to inform the consumer is actively resisted. With me it's more of an intention than a practice. I had the best success with beef after mad cow disease and milk during the BGH peak.

Food disparagement laws suck. And organic ain't what it used to be.
 
Old 08-23-2013, 07:42 AM   #873 (permalink)
EcoModding Alien Observer
 
suspectnumber961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I flitter here and there
Posts: 547

highcountryexplorer - '86 Nissan 720 KC 4x4 ST with fiberglass cap
90 day: 21.78 mpg (US)

Elroy - '03 Ford Focus ZX3 w/Zetec DOHC engine
90 day: 32.89 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 78 Times in 65 Posts
I avoid most processed foods. Most likely to be GMO are corn and soy...which are fed to farm animals....at CFOs. Dairy cows eat GMOs also.

You could test the effects of GMOs on yourself by eating lots of corn chips. If the high sodium and poor oils don't get you...the GMO corn might.

They taste test foods on kids (sugar) and truck drivers (salt and fat)....lots of sugar...salt...cheap oils.

If the ingredients are cheap and will store for a long time (I worked in a food warehouse for a short while) and kids and truck drivers like the food....they will sell it to you.

The "food" just needs to use cheap ingredients and
"taste good" to make big profits. People are conditioned to like cheap processed food from an early age.

Beginning of the end?

http://www.naturalnews.com/041737_Mo...dge_funds.html
__________________
Carry on humans...we are extremely proud of you. ..................

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. GALLUP POLL

Last edited by suspectnumber961; 08-23-2013 at 08:04 AM..
 
Old 08-24-2013, 12:02 AM   #874 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 15,249
Thanks: 3,857
Thanked 5,080 Times in 4,045 Posts
Quote:
Why humanity will achieve victory against Monsanto
That's actually a heart-warming story.
 
Old 08-25-2013, 06:10 PM   #875 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: World
Posts: 385
Thanks: 82
Thanked 82 Times in 67 Posts
If we take GM to mean anything other than selective breeding, using whatever variation in gene sequence that happens to occur spontaneously, vilifying GM is silly. It is only a description of the techniques used. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. It is what is done that matters, not how.

I am aware of 'GM' being used to quickly and cleanly assess the effects of differences in particular gene sequences. When the desirable changes were determined, selective breeding techniques were used to obtain the same sequences so it didn't have to be labelled as 'GMO'. Extra time and expense, and inevitably additional untargeted changes, all so the stigma of 'GMO' could be avoided.

Given the problems the world is facing, I don't think we can afford to dismiss such useful tools.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to Occasionally6 For This Useful Post:
Arragonis (08-25-2013)
Old 08-25-2013, 08:54 PM   #876 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,848

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,325
Thanked 2,858 Times in 1,796 Posts
Genetically modified means gen splicing in the lab, for the specific ends of letting the plant in question be "immune" to some herbicide or pesticide. It benefits no one but the patent holder. And it risks a great deal - and one result is super-weeds that are also immune to the chemicals.

Gee, what a great outcome...
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
 
Old 08-25-2013, 09:31 PM   #877 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 15,249
Thanks: 3,857
Thanked 5,080 Times in 4,045 Posts


There is no cause for alarm.
 
Old 08-26-2013, 01:47 AM   #878 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,169
Thanks: 1,728
Thanked 582 Times in 399 Posts
We have had pesticide/herbicide resistant weeds since we started using them.

Toxin resistance predates laboratory-based genetic engineering.

Just as genetic manipulation of food crops and animals predates laboratory-based genetic engineering.

The only difference is, with specific genetic insertion, you avoid all the other genetic anomalies and side-effects created by intensive cross-breeding and monoculture.

-

And, as I've pointed out earlier in this thread, there are non-profits that carry out this research and who don't pursue the same cut-throat agenda as certain companies do.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to niky For This Useful Post:
Occasionally6 (08-26-2013)
Old 08-26-2013, 02:54 AM   #879 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: World
Posts: 385
Thanks: 82
Thanked 82 Times in 67 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
Genetically modified means gen splicing in the lab, for the specific ends of letting the plant in question be "immune" to some herbicide or pesticide. It benefits no one but the patent holder. And it risks a great deal - and one result is super-weeds that are also immune to the chemicals.

Gee, what a great outcome...
So, one application GM has been used in is to provide resistance to glyphosate pesticides. That does make it easier to spray for weeds and increase crop yields from a given piece of land and other inputs. If nothing else, that increase in efficiency should result in lower prices (to someone) and lower greenhouse gas emissions for a given yield. Those are benefits.

"Super weeds", resistant to glyphosate, how though? As far as I know there's been no transfer of genetic resistance from crop plant to wild plant and the resistance has arisen due to simple selection pressure. That is known because there are different mechanisms by which resistance is conferred in the resistant crop plants and in the wild plants.

You might argue that glyphosate herbicides could be used more intelligently, such as using them in conjunction with herbicides that kill by a different mechanism, in order to catch the plants that do evolve resistance. That can just as easily apply to using any single herbicide alone, with or without GM crops.

There are concerns with GMO's but there are also significant, realised and potential (which are huge), benefits.

Labelling has been resisted because it tells you nothing of value about how a crop has been grown. It's more nuanced than GM vs non-GM.
 
Old 08-26-2013, 04:13 AM   #880 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Mark Lynas Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013

Quote:
So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.

But this was still only the beginning.

__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
 
Closed Thread  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com