|
|
Post by bluemingidiot on May 19, 2016 7:48:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by indypartridge on May 19, 2016 12:40:04 GMT
And they are proposing to name the merged company "Soylent Industries".
|
|
|
|
Post by Awnry Abe on May 20, 2016 2:33:00 GMT
When you add evil to evil, it isn't simple algebra like "2X Evil".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 1:33:36 GMT
I thought all along Bayer had some interest in Monsanto.
The other day I was listening to the News and they was saying Genetic Engineered Foods were perfectly safe. Just common sense says this is not so.
Rockpile |
|
|
|
Post by themotherhen on May 22, 2016 3:49:54 GMT
When you add evil to evil, it isn't simple algebra like "2X Evil". It becomes evil(evil(squared)•evil(squared)) |
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on May 22, 2016 6:13:36 GMT
Almost every vegetable that we eat has been genetically modified from its original form. To date, none has been proved to be detrimental to our health. In fact, the opposite it true. If one doesn't like genetically modified carrots, for example, the original option is Queen Anne's Lace. Nobody knows when tomatoes were first genetically modified but perhaps as long ago as 2,000 years. (The originals were not much bigger than currants.) Corn may have been longer than that. Bananas used to be full of seeds. If one wants to marvel about where genetic modification has taken us, beside those already mentioned, beets, chard, sugar beets and mangels started out as the same thing. And who can find fault with Big Beef tomatoes or Packman cauliflower? We need more, not less!
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Awnry Abe on May 22, 2016 11:24:27 GMT
Genetic modification allows chemically detrimental factory farming techniques. It isn't the genetic fabric of the plant that concerns me, it is the junk coursing through its veins.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseyrider on May 24, 2016 1:17:06 GMT
Almost every vegetable that we eat has been genetically modified from its original form. To date, none has been proved to be detrimental to our health. In fact, the opposite it true. If one doesn't like genetically modified carrots, for example, the original option is Queen Anne's Lace. Nobody knows when tomatoes were first genetically modified but perhaps as long ago as 2,000 years. (The originals were not much bigger than currants.) Corn may have been longer than that. Bananas used to be full of seeds. If one wants to marvel about where genetic modification has taken us, beside those already mentioned, beets, chard, sugar beets and mangels started out as the same thing. And who can find fault with Big Beef tomatoes or Packman cauliflower? We need more, not less! Martin I know many people feel exactly as you do. But to me, there's a fundamental difference. What you are describing are what most folks call Mendelian genetics. You remember from your high school biology class the story about the monk, Gregor Mendel, who began crossing pea plants to select for preferred characteristics. This is where two things that are capable of crossing naturally are brought together over subsequent generations with the intention of improving the offspring. Your analogy of tomatoes, carrots, and corn are exactly this type of natural genetic modification. But what is offered today as genetically modified life are genes mechanically spliced in to another chain of DNA that never could cross in nature. Think of the salmon and the eel that becomes GMO salmon. Those two could never cross in nature; but when spliced together in the laboratory, the result is a fish that grows really, really fast on less feed. Or the addition of bacillus theringiensis to the DNA sequence in field corn, so the resulting crop kills corn borers and other worms with a few bites. Again, these two things could never cross in nature; but they do in the laboratory. It's the inherent inability of the two to cross in nature, and the interference in the laboratory to force it anyhow, that leaves many people questioning the safety and ethics of such 'crosses.' This is life patented as intellectual property, which again, many feel is of questionable ethical value, since it's becoming apparent that a handful of megalithic companies are beginning to own alarmingly large percentages of the world's food supply. A person could spend many years crossing peas like Mendel did, and perhaps arrive at something as novel and rewarding as the Sugar Snap. Or they could take a shortcut in the laboratory and splice certain pea genetic material to another pea's genetic material. You'd sure have to have a big checkbook for the expenses, but that's not so objectionable to most, if the offspring breed true. But when things that could never occur in nature are spliced together, that's going too far for many of us. Some studies point to leaky gut syndrome and increased allergies from eating the food; and others point to alterations in soil microbiology due to the constant applications of glyphosate. And in my state as well as several others, the constant use of glyphosate is causing the development of RoundUp-resistant velvetleaf and lamb's quarters; so the development of yet more herbicides is coming to the fore. I agree with you on so many topics. But on this one, I think we're in very different places. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 2:01:25 GMT
Almost every vegetable that we eat has been genetically modified from its original form. To date, none has been proved to be detrimental to our health. In fact, the opposite it true. If one doesn't like genetically modified carrots, for example, the original option is Queen Anne's Lace. Nobody knows when tomatoes were first genetically modified but perhaps as long ago as 2,000 years. (The originals were not much bigger than currants.) Corn may have been longer than that. Bananas used to be full of seeds. If one wants to marvel about where genetic modification has taken us, beside those already mentioned, beets, chard, sugar beets and mangels started out as the same thing. And who can find fault with Big Beef tomatoes or Packman cauliflower? We need more, not less! Martin I know many people feel exactly as you do. But to me, there's a fundamental difference. What you are describing are what most folks call Mendelian genetics. You remember from your high school biology class the story about the monk, Gregor Mendel, who began crossing pea plants to select for preferred characteristics. This is where two things that are capable of crossing naturally are brought together over subsequent generations with the intention of improving the offspring. Your analogy of tomatoes, carrots, and corn are exactly this type of natural genetic modification. But what is offered today as genetically modified life are genes mechanically spliced in to another chain of DNA that never could cross in nature. Think of the salmon and the eel that becomes GMO salmon. Those two could never cross in nature; but when spliced together in the laboratory, the result is a fish that grows really, really fast on less feed. Or the addition of bacillus theringiensis to the DNA sequence in field corn, so the resulting crop kills corn borers and other worms with a few bites. Again, these two things could never cross in nature; but they do in the laboratory. It's the inherent inability of the two to cross in nature, and the interference in the laboratory to force it anyhow, that leaves many people questioning the safety and ethics of such 'crosses.' This is life patented as intellectual property, which again, many feel is of questionable ethical value, since it's becoming apparent that a handful of megalithic companies are beginning to own alarmingly large percentages of the world's food supply. A person could spend many years crossing peas like Mendel did, and perhaps arrive at something as novel and rewarding as the Sugar Snap. Or they could take a shortcut in the laboratory and splice certain pea genetic material to another pea's genetic material. You'd sure have to have a big checkbook for the expenses, but that's not so objectionable to most, if the offspring breed true. But when things that could never occur in nature are spliced together, that's going too far for many of us. Some studies point to leaky gut syndrome and increased allergies from eating the food; and others point to alterations in soil microbiology due to the constant applications of glyphosate. And in my state as well as several others, the constant use of glyphosate is causing the development of RoundUp-resistant velvetleaf and lamb's quarters; so the development of yet more herbicides is coming to the fore. I agree with you on so many topics. But on this one, I think we're in very different places.
X's two. 
|
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on May 24, 2016 3:40:08 GMT
@trellis, horseyrider,one thing where you both are wrong in is assuming that I am in favor of GMO products. Since there is no scientific information about any modified plants being detrimental to humanity, one can only be neutral until proved elsewiae. Also, my response had nothing to do with GMO but to those who lump all GM into one bag and say that all are evil. There are no two types. Genetically modified is genetically modified no matter if it is someone figuring out peas genetics or coming up with grapefruit and ugli. Any time the genetic sequence is changed, it's modified. As long as whatever is done only within a plant's gene sequence, it is something that can happen naturally as a result of 50 years of breeding or one year in a laboratory. One is no more or less evil than the other. Besides, neither Bayer nor Monsanto are involved in fish so that does not apply to the vegetable seed industry. It's apples to grapes and an entirely different topic altogether. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by horseyrider on May 24, 2016 10:26:47 GMT
@trellis , horseyrider ,one thing where you both are wrong in is assuming that I am in favor of GMO products. Since there is no scientific information about any modified plants being detrimental to humanity, one can only be neutral until proved elsewiae. Also, my response had nothing to do with GMO but to those who lump all GM into one bag and say that all are evil. There are no two types. Genetically modified is genetically modified no matter if it is someone figuring out peas genetics or coming up with grapefruit and ugli. Any time the genetic sequence is changed, it's modified. As long as whatever is done only within a plant's gene sequence, it is something that can happen naturally as a result of 50 years of breeding or one year in a laboratory. One is no more or less evil than the other. Besides, neither Bayer nor Monsanto are involved in fish so that does not apply to the vegetable seed industry. It's apples to grapes and an entirely different topic altogether. Martin I included the fish thing because it's such a glaring example of how two otherwise impossible things are being made into one. But we can dispense with that analogy if you like. I think the difference may be is that you see all changes in gene sequence as the same; where I do not. To me, one is the natural progression of life either altering itself to better adapt to the environment, or people selecting for more desirable traits; and the other is changing the very fabric of which life is made. The sort of ethical dilemmas that result from interfering with that is where many people begin to feel it's "evil." As far as there being no scientific information about them being detrimental, that could be argued. But the genie is out of the bottle now, with more than 93% of the corn crop in our country being GM, and 86% of soybeans being the same, it's definitely mainstream. It's not been around long enough for true long term testing, although it's in 70+% of supermarket goods; so we, as Americans, are the lab rats. Sometimes, what's commonly accepted as safe, actually isn't. I think about how, 60 years or so ago, people were treated for chronic tonsillitis by shrinking the tonsils with xrays. It became very common to go through this knifeless procedure, and it looked perfectly safe. Until thirty years later, when an overwhelming number of those same people developed thyroid cancer. My mother was one of those people; and the person who did the procedure was my grandfather. He wished only comfort and health for her; but it didn't turn out that way. If there was ever a notion more rife with the prospect of unintended consequences than GMOs, I cannot imagine what it might be. |
|
|
|
Post by kawaiitimes on May 24, 2016 11:05:06 GMT
As a related note on mega companies that own things you would hope they not own, one of the specialist labs that processed a bunch of DH's bloodwork is owned by Nestle. I found out while contacting them about a billing issue and found "a Nestle company" buried in their contact information.
It gave me great pause.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfmom on May 24, 2016 11:14:38 GMT
Plant an aspirin, makes the bugs go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseyrider on May 24, 2016 17:22:09 GMT
Plant an aspirin, makes the bugs go away. Heh. If only.  Actually that wouldn't bother me a bit if it'd work; aspirin is made from acetylsalicitic acid, which comes from the bark of a particular kind of willow tree. I do believe that if people don't buy those things that they object to, companies will change what they offer. We often forget that we have tremendous power as consumers because we vote with our dollars many times every single day. They won't offer what doesn't sell. |
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on May 24, 2016 17:58:05 GMT
When it comes to modifying the genetics of a plant form, most people think that the only accepted method is to just plant two plants side-by-side and what happens is what you get. Many of that type were against hybrids and still are but mostly accepted even though the pollen transfer is by human hands. However, I deliberately mentioned one which everyone welcomed with open arms despite it being any way but natural. One can say that the state fruit of Texas is the red grapefruit. Grapefruit itself is a hybrid but wasn't originally pink. That color showed up as a mutation. Red came about by a totally different means far from natural and done in a lab. I won't bore anyone with facts but suggest that you look it up and decide what a red grapefruit should be called.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by horseyrider on May 24, 2016 23:06:37 GMT
When it comes to modifying the genetics of a plant form, most people think that the only accepted method is to just plant two plants side-by-side and what happens is what you get. Many of that type were against hybrids and still are but mostly accepted even though the pollen transfer is by human hands. However, I deliberately mentioned one which everyone welcomed with open arms despite it being any way but natural. One can say that the state fruit of Texas is the red grapefruit. Grapefruit itself is a hybrid but wasn't originally pink. That color showed up as a mutation. Red came about by a totally different means far from natural and done in a lab. I won't bore anyone with facts but suggest that you look it up and decide what a red grapefruit should be called. Martin Delicious? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 23:42:57 GMT
Huh!!! I was thinking that a red grapefruit should be called an abomination, but I am only saying that in reference to its taste.
Sorry, but I have never liked any type/flavor of grapefruit. I know, I am weird.
I also hate the taste of coffee. That makes me really weird!!!
|
|
