World Politics

[RetroActive]

I'm not talking about islamaphobia, also because I have traveled to several Muslim countries. And it disturbs me too those reactionaries that don't understand that the permescuity is here to stay, who thus don't know what to do about it except contemplate building new concentration camps. For this reason, finding a common civic ground is the only alternative to the unfathonable.

You may not be talking about islamophobia but the overall discussion, media and masses, points in that direction with regularity and frequency. I don't think that radical Islam is going to have it's way any time soon in the west, the reactionaries on the other hand...this all plays into their hand for certain. Yup, dialogue is the only answer. Do you want to talk to my islamophobic christian fundamentalist mother in law or do I have to?

 

[Merckx index]

"The burden of proof is on those who claim it isn't safe to eat." So this is a problematic assertion for me right at the start, the burden of proof is on those claiming it is. We've evolved on this planet over a very long time eating biology as it is (co-evolving with it, and it with the larger environment), with some problems. I'm lactose intolerant, but lactose is just sugar - what's your problem? Aren't you a machine like the rest of us?

Again, this is irrelevant to GMO. Lactose intolerance is an entirely different issue. You don’t seem to understand that different DNA sequences become obliterated during the process of digestion.

Look at what happens to the Seralini study. There's a real problem with money in science, not unlike politics. I'm not a scientist but there are plenty of scientists speaking out if you care to look.

Numerous problems with these studies, which I’m not going to reiterate here. It was very poor science, and has not been replicated. He retracted one of his studies.

The issue transcends "safety."

In Italy people are very conscious about what they but into their bodies. And it really is a much discussed topic, in ways that most Americans wouldn't be able to relate to: in short it is cultural (the way etymologically agri-culture, the cult-ivation of the land, has sacred and civilized connotations). They don't want the American stuff, because, frankly, looking at Americans, they have every reason not to trust it. Their prejudice is a valid concern when we look at the obesity rates between the two countries and all the health concerns this causes.

Again, this is not relevant. Yes, the Medi diet may be very healthy, but what makes it healthy has to do with the kinds of foods people eat. To repeat, after digestion, GM DNA is exactly the same as natural DNA. In your digestive tract, it’s the same small molecule nutrients. An Italian diet with GMO is no different from one with natural DNA.

In fact, GM DNA generally is natural. It’s found in nature. What is unnatural about it is putting it into another organism.

....just showed the bit above to my partner who happens to be a medical researcher ( her resume includes several major drug trials )....her first response was, uhhh, stunned silence....then she said "That is the stupid beyond words...."....she went on to say that you may be a perfect fit in the drug industry as your idea would save them piles of money and much bother...

...and frankly I didn't/couldn't put up much of an argument...

...those that care about this issue may want to read the following...

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/sc...-effects-of-genetically-modifying-food-crops/

Cheers

I would be happy to debate your partner. As a medical researcher myself, I’ve found that some of my colleagues are quite ignorant about GMO.

There isn’t a single point in that linked article that suggests adverse effects from eating GMO. Like others, the article conflates environmental effects, which I’ve already said are a legitimate concern, with effects of eating. I have no problem with linking environmental dangers with human health, but one needs to be very clear that human health in this sense is not the same as the sense concerned with what foods we put into our body.

Yes, I understand that the drug industry has a lot of problems with it, and is a favorite whipping boy for many scientists. Having worked in (academic) drug research for many years, I’m well aware of some of the industry’s tactics: biased studies, gifting newly graduated MDs so they will endorse their products, studies designed to increase addiction to products. I can say a lot of bad things about Monsanto.

None of which is going to induce me to throw scientific objectivity out the window. Basic biochemistry tells anyone that it would be extremely improbable that eating a GM food would have any health effects.

Again, the fugu example is very relevant. Ask any scientist whether he would be concerned about eating fugu DNA, and he would ridicule the idea. The only reason the notion is applied to GMO is because they “seem unnatural” to people.

I understand that the DNA gets obliterated, my point was we don't all metabolize things the same way. We're not all affected the same way, as inconvenient as that is.

Yes, and there was a case when a GMO bean, I think it was, caused food allergies because it contained a peanut protein, to which some people are allergic. Point noted. But this was not the result of a new, unnatural protein, it was the result of a natural protein being in a food in which it ordinarily would not be found. I'm not aware of any case of new allergies resulting from GMO proteins. Is it possible? Sure. The question is, how likely is it?

Food allergies result from natural substances. In fact, in principle it would not be difficult to GM foods that some people are normally allergic to so that they no longer would be allergic.

To be as fair as possible, here is a brief summary of the possible harmful effects of eating GMO. I will reiterate: nothing is 100% guaranteed. All of these scenarios are possible, none has been shown to be very likely. Could a very small proportion of people be affected by one of these processes? Sure. But this probability has to be weighed against the possible benefits.

I myself don’t worry at all about eating GM foods. Not because I believe there is zero possibility of an adverse effect, but because I accept there is not a zero possibility of an adverse effect from eating natural foods. From time to time, people die from eating natural foods that have not been cleaned of harmful bacteria, e.g. I regard this as a risk of living in modern societies with mass production of foods. I have grown my own food at times, but this is not risk free, either.

 

[RetroActive]

Again, this is irrelevant to GMO. Lactose intolerance is an entirely different issue. You don’t seem to understand that different DNA sequences become obliterated during the process of digestion.

I guess we'll just have to trust you then. How many times has science had a whoopsie, sorry about that - we were wrong? This is our food though. It's all moot now anyway as it's out there and even if we wanted to put the genie back in the bottle we couldn't.

I understand that the DNA gets obliterated, my point was we don't all metabolize things the same way. We're not all affected the same way, as inconvenient as that is.

Here's a letter from a bunch of kooks:
http://www.donotlink.com/framed?19325

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I guess we'll just have to trust you then. How many times has science had a whoosie, sorry about that - we were wrong? This is our food though. It's all moot now anyway as it's out there and even if we wanted to put the genie back in the bottle we couldn't.

I understand that the DNA gets obliterated, my point was we don't all metabolize things the same way. We're not all affected the same way, as inconvenient as that is.

Here's a letter from a bunch of kooks:
http://www.donotlink.com/framed?19325

What you are suggesting is along the lines of: if I move to New Zealand, I flip a coin it'll land on its edge 9 time out of ten.

Theoretically possible, but that's not really how the science behind it works. It just isn't. Listen to the expert (Merckx Index). He knows what he's talking about.

John Swanson

 

[RetroActive]

What you are suggesting is along the lines of: if I move to New Zealand, I flip a coin it'll land on its edge 9 time out of ten.

Theoretically possible, but that's not really how the science behind it works. It just isn't. Listen to the expert (Merckx Index). He knows what he's talking about.

John Swanson

I just provided a link that contains more than one point that needs addressing. There are updates there too.

ps, I have no doubt he's an expert at looking through his microscope but that's not really the whole picture is it?

The uncomfortable fact remains that Europe and Russia don't want the GMOs that the Ukraine will be growing as a consequence of their IMF/Monsanto deal.

 

[Merckx index]

Here's a letter from a bunch of kooks:
http://www.donotlink.com/framed?19325

I don’t have a problem with much of the scientists’ complaints, involving social and environmental effects. But while they do include objections based on effects of eating GM food, they don’t provide much evidence suggesting this is likely to be a problem. They cite some old studies, apparently never followed up (why?), indicating that naked DNA can be incorporated into bacteria in saliva.

This is not unexpected. If you adjust the laboratory conditions carefully, you would expect to get some DNA to be taken up by bacteria. The question is, how much and how likely is this to happen in the human body? As the last sentence in the abstract states, “further investigations are needed to establish whether transformation of oral bacteria can occur at significant frequencies in vivo.” And in the one other paper by this group that I could find, they state in the conclusion: “It is not known what proportion of oral streptococci develop competence under in vivo conditions in the oral cavity, and we have not attempted to address this question directly here.”

I believe much of this movement is driven by those worried about corporate domination of the world. A great deal of the letter expresses these fears, and I don’t have a problem with that. There are also legitimate questions about environmental effects, and as I said before, I don’t have a problem with these questions, either. The possible health effects of eating these foods is basically tacked on to these other concerns. They don’t stand up to much scrutiny, but because the heavy lifting is done by other concerns, they sort of get a free ride. When you start with corporate control of people’s lives, add in possible environmental effects, then just raising a fairly remote possibility of health effects is frosting on the cake. It adds to the overall evil picture of GMO, which is what is being painted here.

I understand that corporations frequently show profound disregard for individual lives, but ironically, that is helpful here. We have all been part of a vast experiment in which many of us have unknowingly consumed GM foods. Other than the allergy problem I mentioned before, no evidence supporting these horror scenarios has emerged.

This is significant, because this is basically the same kind of evidence that supports the ingestion of so-called natural foods. How do we know that naked DNA from some natural food will not be incorporated into bacteria in the saliva? We don't. In fact, we never even concerned ourselves with this remote possibility until GMO arrived, and people opposed to it racked their brains to imagine new ways to criticize it. Most of the theoretical arguments applied to ingesting GM foods apply just as much to natural foods. With all the tens of thousands of years our omnivorous species has been in existence, the enormous variety of foods we consume, wouldn't you think that if naked DNA getting into oral bacteria from food was a significant problem, we would have some evidence for it by now?

We don't worry about this, precisely because it hasn't proved to be a problem. Well, we're getting the same kind of record for GMO. GM foods have not been around very long, of course, but on the other hand, the number of people consuming them is far larger than existed on the entire planet for much of our history.

The rationale and impetus for genetic engineering and genetic modification was the ‘central dogma’ of molecular biology that assumed DNA carries all the instructions for making an organism. This view has been expanded but not basically negated by the fluid and responsive genome that already has come to light since the early 1980s. Instead of linear causal chains leading from DNA to RNA to protein and downstream biological functions, complex feed-forward and feed-back cycles interconnect organism and environment at all levels, marking and changing RNA and DNA down the generations. This is why organisms and ecosystems are highly stable to changes in the environment, and why our species has survived as long as it has. The small world networks known to exist both in the metabolic processes within cells and in the neural processes in the human brain are profoundly resistant to most kinds of perturbations. It is also why genetic modification has occurred throughout all evolutionary history beginning with the emergence of prokaryotic cells.

Modified.

 

[RetroActive]

I don’t have a problem with much of the scientists’ complaints, involving social and environmental effects. But while they do include objections based on effects of eating GM food, they don’t provide much evidence suggesting this is likely to be a problem. They cite some old studies, apparently never followed up (why?), indicating that naked DNA can be incorporated into bacteria in saliva.

This is not unexpected. If you adjust the laboratory conditions carefully, you would expect to get some DNA to be taken up by bacteria. The question is, how much and how likely is this to happen in the human body? As the last sentence in the abstract states, “further investigations are needed to establish whether transformation of oral bacteria can occur at significant frequencies in vivo.” And in the one other paper by this group that I could find, they state in the conclusion: “It is not known what proportion of oral streptococci develop competence under in vivo conditions in the oral cavity, and we have not attempted to address this question directly here.”

I believe much of this movement is driven by those worried about corporate domination of the world. A great deal of the letter expresses these fears, and I don’t have a problem with that. There are also legitimate questions about environmental effects, and as I said before, I don’t have a problem with these questions, either. The possible health effects of eating these foods is basically tacked on to these other concerns. They don’t stand up to much scrutiny, but because the heavy lifting is done by other concerns, they sort of get a free ride. When you start with corporate control of people’s lives, add in possible environmental effects, then just raising a fairly remote possibility of health effects is frosting on the cake. It adds to the overall evil picture of GMO, which is what is being painted here.

I understand that corporations frequently show profound disregard for individual lives, but ironically, that is helpful here. We have all been part of a vast experiment in which many of us have unknowingly consumed GM foods. Other than the allergy problem I mentioned before, no evidence supporting these horror scenarios has emerged.

This is significant, because this is basically the same kind of evidence that supports the ingestion of so-called natural foods. How do we know that naked DNA from some natural food will not be incorporated into bacteria in the saliva? We don't. In fact, we never even concerned ourselves with this remote possibility until GMO arrived, and people opposed to it racked their brains to imagine new ways to criticize it. Most of the theoretical arguments applied to ingesting GM foods apply just as much to natural foods. With all the tens of thousands of years our omnivorous species has been in existence, the enormous variety of foods we consume, wouldn't you think that if naked DNA getting into oral bacteria from food was a significant problem, we would have some evidence for it by now?

We don't worry about this, precisely because it hasn't proved to be a problem. Well, we're getting the same kind of record for GMO. GM foods have not been around very long, of course, but on the other hand, the number of people consuming them is far larger than existed on the entire planet for much of our history.

Very reassuring.

From the 2013 update:
New genetics & hazards of genetic modification

The rationale and impetus for genetic engineering and genetic modification was the ‘central dogma’ of molecular biology that assumed DNA carries all the instructions for making an organism. This is contrary to the reality of the fluid and responsive genome that already has come to light since the early 1980s. Instead of linear causal chains leading from DNA to RNA to protein and downstream biological functions, complex feed-forward and feed-back cycles interconnect organism and environment at all levels, marking and changing RNA and DNA down the generations. In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life with RNA and DNA responding to and participating fully in ‘downstream’ biological functions. That is why organisms and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the crude, artificial genetically modified RNA and DNA created by human genetic engineers. It is also why genetic modification can probably never be safe.

There are so many concerns surrounding all this but people can look into it themselves. It's really too bad it isn't working, in the real world, as promised and people are rejecting it.

 

[rhubroma]

Again, this is not relevant. Yes, the Medi diet may be very healthy, but what makes it healthy has to do with the kinds of foods people eat. To repeat, after digestion, GM DNA is exactly the same as natural DNA. In your digestive tract, it’s the same small molecule nutrients. An Italian diet with GMO is no different from one with natural DNA.

What do you mean NOT RELEVANT? I was refering to Europeans not wanting the damn Euro politicians (who, frankly, aren't representing them) making a deal with the devil based completely on (mostly) US economic interests, to determine what they will be putting in their mouths and stomachs. The Europeans don't want the US sh!t, but that doesn't seem to be a factor at all in what is going to take place.

This is another example of corporate America exercising the necessary pressure to bear to invade peoples lives. The people in US land may have been part of a big scientific experiment, but where is it written that the Europeans should, against their will, be forced to take part. This is pure arrogance and imperialism at work.

The beyond safety concern is thus entirely relevant, when approaching the problem from the fundamental perspective of culture (not business, nor science - of which, in any case, I harbor doubts: who was doing it? under what interests? driven by what ideology? by contrast, I have no doubts about what is produced according to the laws of mother nature). An Italian diet with GMO is, therefore, a radical imposition to a civilization. It is enough to recall in the past that US doctors once told soon-to-be mothers that breast feeding was bad and that the science of formula was more advisable!!! After the birth these women were then given a shot of something to cancel their natural milk production! Science at work for your good and mine.

I'm reminded of where I was cycling this summer in the area around Fondi-Sperlongo-Itri in southern Lazio, which appart from being rather nice, is an important agricultural zone. All over the roadside were wooden proudly signs announcing that the region is an Anti-GMO zone. What insolence!

The following article reports protests in Rome "to save the Italian environment and food from the danger of GMO contamination," and which "asks the government to safegaurd the legal clause, which prohibits the introduction of cultivation using biotech plants." Again, I say, what insolence!

http://www.lazio.coldiretti.it/coldiretti-lazio-domani-in-piazza-montecitorio-a-roma-per-dire-no-agli-ogm.aspx?KeyPub=GP_CD_LAZIO_INFO|PAGINA_CD_LAZIO_NCS&Cod_Oggetto=46618503&subskintype=Detail

 

[RetroActive]

What do you mean NOT RELEVANT? I was refering to Europeans not wanting the damn Euro politicians (who, frankly, aren't representing them) making a deal with the devil based completely on (mostly) US economic interests, to determine what they will be putting in their mouths and stomachs. The Europeans don't want the US sh!t, but that doesn't seem to be a factor at all in what is going to take place.

This is another example of corporate America exercising the necessary pressure to bear to invade peoples lives. The people in US land may have been part of a big scientific experiment, but where is it written that the Europeans should, against their will, be forced to take part. This is pure arrogance and imperialism at work.

Now, now rhub. Father knows best. What do you think this is a democracy? hahaha, why would we leave decisions in the hands of the idiot masses? Crazy talk.

Besides, every time you enjoy your pasta you surely must have questioned where the wheat came from. I bet there was some Canadian grown GMO in there, welcome to the experiment.

 

[rhubroma]

Now, now rhub. Father knows best. What do you think this is a democracy? hahaha, why would we leave decisions in the hands of the idiot masses? Crazy talk.

Besides, every time you enjoy your pasta you surely must have questioned where the wheat came from. I bet there was some Canadian grown GMO in there, welcome to the experiment.

While this may be the case, and I don't know, this does nothing to alter the fact that Europeans have staunchly refused GMO, which is the only thing that should matter.

 

[RetroActive]

I don’t have a problem with much of the scientists’ complaints, involving social and environmental effects. But while they do include objections based on effects of eating GM food, they don’t provide much evidence suggesting this is likely to be a problem. They cite some old studies, apparently never followed up (why?), indicating that naked DNA can be incorporated into bacteria in saliva.

This is not unexpected. If you adjust the laboratory conditions carefully, you would expect to get some DNA to be taken up by bacteria. The question is, how much and how likely is this to happen in the human body? As the last sentence in the abstract states, “further investigations are needed to establish whether transformation of oral bacteria can occur at significant frequencies in vivo.” And in the one other paper by this group that I could find, they state in the conclusion: “It is not known what proportion of oral streptococci develop competence under in vivo conditions in the oral cavity, and we have not attempted to address this question directly here.”

I believe much of this movement is driven by those worried about corporate domination of the world. A great deal of the letter expresses these fears, and I don’t have a problem with that. There are also legitimate questions about environmental effects, and as I said before, I don’t have a problem with these questions, either. The possible health effects of eating these foods is basically tacked on to these other concerns. They don’t stand up to much scrutiny, but because the heavy lifting is done by other concerns, they sort of get a free ride. When you start with corporate control of people’s lives, add in possible environmental effects, then just raising a fairly remote possibility of health effects is frosting on the cake. It adds to the overall evil picture of GMO, which is what is being painted here.

I understand that corporations frequently show profound disregard for individual lives, but ironically, that is helpful here. We have all been part of a vast experiment in which many of us have unknowingly consumed GM foods. Other than the allergy problem I mentioned before, no evidence supporting these horror scenarios has emerged.

This is significant, because this is basically the same kind of evidence that supports the ingestion of so-called natural foods. How do we know that naked DNA from some natural food will not be incorporated into bacteria in the saliva? We don't. In fact, we never even concerned ourselves with this remote possibility until GMO arrived, and people opposed to it racked their brains to imagine new ways to criticize it. Most of the theoretical arguments applied to ingesting GM foods apply just as much to natural foods. With all the tens of thousands of years our omnivorous species has been in existence, the enormous variety of foods we consume, wouldn't you think that if naked DNA getting into oral bacteria from food was a significant problem, we would have some evidence for it by now?

We don't worry about this, precisely because it hasn't proved to be a problem. Well, we're getting the same kind of record for GMO. GM foods have not been around very long, of course, but on the other hand, the number of people consuming them is far larger than existed on the entire planet for much of our history.



Modified.

Don't modify it on an old post, my computer isn't working very well. It's a pain to cut and snip, or do very much of anything else. look it just pumped out two smilies and I only wanted one. This old girl is about done.

I'm sure there's a very interesting discussion to be had about epigentics (or whatever name you choose to use) but I'm not the one to have it with. I'd enjoy reading it though but I don't think this is the thread. Relationship, Interaction, Variability, Change, Adaptability, Co-evolution. Complex, very complex.

 

[RetroActive]

While this may be the case, and I don't know, this does nothing to alter the fact that Europeans have staunchly refused GMO, which is the only thing that should matter.

I know. I wish I had that choice. I can choose to grow my own garden using heritage seeds, and so I do, but as for the rest I just chew and swallow.

 

[RetroActive]

What do you mean NOT RELEVANT? I was refering to Europeans not wanting the damn Euro politicians (who, frankly, aren't representing them) making a deal with the devil based completely on (mostly) US economic interests, to determine what they will be putting in their mouths and stomachs. The Europeans don't want the US sh!t, but that doesn't seem to be a factor at all in what is going to take place.

This is another example of corporate America exercising the necessary pressure to bear to invade peoples lives. The people in US land may have been part of a big scientific experiment, but where is it written that the Europeans should, against their will, be forced to take part. This is pure arrogance and imperialism at work.

The beyond safety concern is thus entirely relevant, when approaching the problem from the fundamental perspective of culture (not business, nor science - of which, in any case, I harbor doubts: who was doing it? under what interests? driven by what ideology? by contrast, I have no doubts about what is produced according to the laws of mother nature). An Italian diet with GMO is, therefore, a radical imposition to a civilization. It is enough to recall in the past that US doctors once told soon-to-be mothers that breast feeding was bad and that the science of formula was more advisable!!! After the birth these women were then given a shot of something to cancel their natural milk production! Science at work for your good and mine.

I'm reminded of where I was cycling this summer in the area around Fondi-Sperlongo-Itri in southern Lazio, which appart from being rather nice, is an important agricultural zone. All over the roadside were wooden proudly signs announcing that the region is an Anti-GMO zone. What insolence!

The following article reports protests in Rome "to save the Italian environment and food from the danger of GMO contamination," and which "asks the government to safegaurd the legal clause, which prohibits the introduction of cultivation using biotech plants." Again, I say, what insolence!

http://www.lazio.coldiretti.it/coldiretti-lazio-domani-in-piazza-montecitorio-a-roma-per-dire-no-agli-ogm.aspx?KeyPub=GP_CD_LAZIO_INFO|PAGINA_CD_LAZIO_NCS&Cod_Oggetto=46618503&subskintype=Detail

Put Sophia back in Philo Sophia. Working against nature is ***. I'm doing a painting now of Chronos/Zeus (the ancient of ancients), he has a Medusa emerging from the cleft in his forehead. SHE still has the wings of victory.

 

[Merckx index]

What do you mean NOT RELEVANT? I was refering to Europeans not wanting the damn Euro politicians (who, frankly, aren't representing them) making a deal with the devil based completely on (mostly) US economic interests, to determine what they will be putting in their mouths and stomachs. The Europeans don't want the US sh!t, but that doesn't seem to be a factor at all in what is going to take place.

This is another example of corporate America exercising the necessary pressure to bear to invade peoples lives. The people in US land may have been part of a big scientific experiment, but where is it written that the Europeans should, against their will, be forced to take part. This is pure arrogance and imperialism at work.

You’re talking about the social aspects of GMO. I made it clear earlier than I have no problem with criticism on this basis.

But I find it ironic that information technology has taken over far more of our lives without much of a peep from the masses. Oh, sure, there are protests that facebook knows and publishes too much of our personal affairs (from people who don’t seem to consider that they don’t have to sign up for fb), or that NSA is spying on us, but where are the protests over personal computers, cell phones, ipads, iphones, etc. that have made so much of this intrusion possible? Who made the decision to inundate society with these? I don’t recall being asked to vote on them. Suddenly I see them in stores, and am besieged by ads telling me how wonderful they are. I’m far more concerned about the effects of this technology on human mental health than I am of GMO on physical health.

Why aren't the Europeans protesting about this? So much of this technology was foisted on them by a handful of people in Silicon Valley.

I'm remided of where I was cycling this summer in the area around Fondi-Sperlongo-Itri in southern Lazio, which appart from being rather nice, is an important agricultural zone. All over the roadside were proud wooden signs announcing that the region is an Anti-GMO zone. What insolence!

The following article reports protests in Rome "to save the Italian environment and food from the danger of GMO contamination," and which "asks the government to safegaurd the legal clause, which prohibits the introduction of cultivation using biotech plants." Again, I say, what insolence!

Reminds me a little of the Luddites/Amish in America who eschew machines entirely. Or people who spurn modern medicine, because only God can determine who lives or dies. Vaccinations cause autism! Let’s stop vaccinating!

I’ll reiterate that I support some of the criticisms of GMO. But much of this criticism come from an anti-change mentality, which I find ironic in the Left.

Climate change is a problem. Pollution is a problem. Species extinction is a problem. Resource depletion is a problem. GMO pales in comparison to these.

While this may be the case, and I don't know, this does nothing to alter the fact that Europeans have staunchly refused GMO, which is the only thing that should matter.

So how many years must Italians eat pasta from GM wheat, without ever noticing the difference, before they consider that maybe a lot of their objections to it are a little silly?

 

[RetroActive]

You’re talking about the social aspects of GMO. I made it clear earlier than I have no problem with criticism on this basis.

But I find it ironic that information technology has taken over far more of our lives without much of a peep from the masses. Oh, sure, there are protests that facebook knows and publishes too much of our personal affairs (from people who don’t seem to consider that they don’t have to sign up for fb), or that NSA is spying on us, but where are the protests over personal computers, cell phones, ipads, iphones, etc. that have made so much of this intrusion possible? Who made the decision to inundate society with these? I don’t recall being asked to vote on them. Suddenly I see them in stores, and am besieged by ads telling me how wonderful they are. I’m far more concerned about the effects of this technology on human mental health than I am of GMO on physical health.



Reminds me a little of the Luddites/Amish in America who eschew machines entirely. Or people who spurn modern medicine, because only God can determine who lives or dies. Vaccinations cause autism! Let’s stop vaccinating!

I’ll reiterate that I support some of the criticisms of GMO. But much of this criticism come from an anti-change mentality, which I find ironic in the Left.

Climate change is a problem. Pollution is a problem. Species extinction is a problem. GMO pales in comparison to these.



So how many years must Italians eat pasta from GM wheat, without ever noticing the difference, before they consider that maybe a lot of their objections to it are a little silly?

You really haven't comprehended what the issues with GMOs are have you?

I don't have any of the modern technologies you mention, excepting this crapping out old computer. That's my choice. I quit a job, in part, because vaccinations were required. I've had maybe 1, possibly 2 colds, and no flus in over 20 yrs. Why should I be required to have a vaccination (that's highly dubious in every way) to keep my job? I can't choose regarding GMOs though.

If everyone adopted Amish levels of technology we would have a lot fewer problems of the sort you cite, climate change, mental health etc. If peak oil is correct we'll be heading in that direction regardless.

 

[rhubroma]

You’re talking about the social aspects of GMO. I made it clear earlier than I have no problem with criticism on this basis.

But I find it ironic that information technology has taken over far more of our lives without much of a peep from the masses. Oh, sure, there are protests that facebook knows and publishes too much of our personal affairs (from people who don’t seem to consider that they don’t have to sign up for fb), or that NSA is spying on us, but where are the protests over personal computers, cell phones, ipads, iphones, etc. that have made so much of this intrusion possible? Who made the decision to inundate society with these? I don’t recall being asked to vote on them. Suddenly I see them in stores, and am besieged by ads telling me how wonderful they are. I’m far more concerned about the effects of this technology on human mental health than I am of GMO on physical health.

Why aren't the Europeans protesting about this? So much of this technology was foisted on them by a handful of people in Silicon Valley.



Reminds me a little of the Luddites/Amish in America who eschew machines entirely. Or people who spurn modern medicine, because only God can determine who lives or dies. Vaccinations cause autism! Let’s stop vaccinating!

I’ll reiterate that I support some of the criticisms of GMO. But much of this criticism come from an anti-change mentality, which I find ironic in the Left.

Climate change is a problem. Pollution is a problem. Species extinction is a problem. Resource depletion is a problem. GMO pales in comparison to these.



So how many years must Italians eat pasta from GM wheat, without ever noticing the difference, before they consider that maybe a lot of their objections to it are a little silly?

To the bolded, who says that? If you like, Italian journalist Michelle Serra keeps a column on Jack's Blog (I believe you can get it in English), which offers interesting critique about social media. Apropos of the GMO issue, this is what he wrote on Oct. 4, 2014:

http://giacomosalerno.com/2014/10/04/lamaca-del-4-ottobre-2014-michele-serra/

“A scientist must not be transformed into a salesmen of patented seeds.” In the brief polemic between Vandana Shiva and the “New Yorker,” this is the ineluctable point of strength of the anti.-GMO Indian leader’s reasoning. The field of research and that of profit can’t become juxtaposed without the neutrality (and therefore the scientificness) of the first being oriented and/or compromised by the objectives of the second. It’s improbable that years of research and investments become placed under question, when it is the same movement that economically benefits from their practice and use. The same concept of “seed patent” inevitably reflects the impulse of the most radical interests of private enterprise: that of life itself and its genetic codes. If it’s true that on the ecological front there marches exemplary fanatics and reactionaries, the opposite side does not exactly shine for the scope of their perspectives. There’s a rigid ideology that often doesn’t even hesitate (and for these reason all the more nefarious) to exalt the agro-industrial innovations as virtuous from their premise. And yet the crude biological simplification induced by GMO, which colonizes immense portions of the planet, killing every type of biodiversity, is a change of gigantic proportions. It would be nice if they would at least discuss it without prejudices. But is the “scientific” camp disposed to place up for discussion the prejudices of its own camp, or rather do they limit themselves to indicate with disdain the “enemies?”

 

[Echoes]

Your baseness knows no ends. Apart from what you say being ludicrous and factually ridiculous (other than moi being a liar), there are serious mental issues in it. I'd recommend a psychiatric visit chap.

Drastic measures, now. Yeah it's a classic method when you have no argument against an opponent. Send him to a psychiatric asylum! Ezra Pound knows that.

So now let us remember why Beccaria (Enlightenment) advocated for the abolition of death penalty. Simply he wanted to commute it into penal servitude (lifetime ban of coursde). Simply he realised that death penalty was not profitable and that is how he thought it wiser to put the convict into slavery (he used the word).

There are many arguments against death penalty but if that is a good one, then I'd be in favour of restoring it. There's nothing humanising, nothing moral in the Enlightenment and certainly not that. It's all UTILITARIAN.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

As for GMO's, I've never understood fundamental problems with genetically modifying your food sources. I mean, every domesticated animal and every specific cultivar of every crop has been artificially made by men. We've selected which hereditary traits we'd like our animals and crops to have and we've bred them for generations to get them to have the genes we want. There's nothing natural about those non-GMO crops in Italy; in fact, they're all artificial; products of humans who are tinkering with nature. If you want to live naturally, go find wild crops and animals to eat.

That's not to say that there are no problems with GMO's. Like Merckx Index has been saying, there might be environmental concerns and all sorts of things. But Rhubroma and RetroActive seem to have fundamental problems with GMO's, not just with the specific techniques of genetically modifying your food, not just with the specific products we have now, but somehow genetically modifying your food is unnatural and therefore wrong in it's very essence. With this reasoning, I don't understand how you can eat specific crop cultivars and domesticated animals all of which are products of thousands of years of human tinkering with nature. What's the essential difference between all the genetics involved in creating new species through breeding and between modern GMO's? (other than that modern GMO's use a way more efficient technique to modify the genes of our crops.) None of it's natural; in both cases humans decide which genes they want their products to have.

Also, as for the attitude towards 'American ****' in general, there seems to be a reasonably big difference between different parts of Europe. North-Western Europe seems to be far less anti-American than some other parts of Europe. I mean, sure, everybody in the world hates the US p), even North-Western Europeans to some extent, but compared to the South of the East of Europe there isn't so much of this 'we don't want your American ****' attitude. (At least, that's how I perceive it from personal experience; I don't have some sort of sociological research to back this up.)

 

[Echoes]

This time, I have to disagree, Marty.

Even if GMO's were healthy, have you considered the socio-economic and judicial aspect, since the crops are patented now.

Anyway, there's more to GMO's, all our traditional agriculture is messed now. And Europe is in favour of GMO's and we are already eating them.

Besides, I don't hate the US, just their leaders and elite. I have respect for the common people in the US. Already said it.

 

[RetroActive]

As for GMO's, I've never understood fundamental problems with genetically modifying your food sources. I mean, every domesticated animal and every specific cultivar of every crop has been artificially made by men. We've selected which hereditary traits we'd like our animals and crops to have and we've bred them for generations to get them to have the genes we want. There's nothing natural about those non-GMO crops in Italy; in fact, they're all artificial; products of humans who are tinkering with nature. If you want to live naturally, go find wild crops and animals to eat.

That's not to say that there are no problems with GMO's. Like Merckx Index has been saying, there might be environmental concerns and all sorts of things. But Rhubroma and RetroActive seem to have fundamental problems with GMO's, not just with the specific techniques of genetically modifying your food, not just with the specific products we have now, but somehow genetically modifying your food is unnatural and therefore wrong in it's very essence. With this reasoning, I don't understand how you can eat specific crop cultivars and domesticated animals all of which are products of thousands of years of human tinkering with nature. What's the essential difference between all the genetics involved in creating new species through breeding and between modern GMO's? (other than that modern GMO's use a way more efficient technique to modify the genes of our crops.) None of it's natural; in both cases humans decide which genes they want their products to have.

Also, as for the attitude towards 'American ****' in general, there seems to be a reasonably big difference between different parts of Europe. North-Western Europe seems to be far less anti-American than some other parts of Europe. I mean, sure, everybody in the world hates the US p), even North-Western Europeans to some extent, but compared to the South of the East of Europe there isn't so much of this 'we don't want your American ****' attitude. (At least, that's how I perceive it from personal experience; I don't have some sort of sociological research to back this up.)

We've never been crossing species before. As Merckx Index acknowledges it's an experiment.
Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

Scandal of Glyphosate Re-assessment in Europe
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Scandal_of_Glyphosate_Reassessment_in_Europe.php

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

We've never been crossing species before. As Merckx Index acknowledges it's an experiment.

Haven't we? I think there are some examples of cross breeding between species, the most famous example being the mule, which is a cross between a male donkey and a female horse. Plant hybrids are for instance a grapefruit, which is a cross of a pomelo and an orange.

I was just reading a bit about hybrids and it turns out that a lot of wheat cultivars are actually crosses between different species of wild grass. So even wheat, the staple of many Western diets, is the product of thousands of years of humans tinkering with nature. Wheat is an artificial product of humans, made by cross-breeding different wild species of grass and selecting the ones with the best traits for thousands of years.

This time, I have to disagree, Marty.

Even if GMO's were healthy, have you considered the socio-economic and judicial aspect, since the crops are patented now.

Anyway, there's more to GMO's, all our traditional agriculture is messed now. And Europe is in favour of GMO's and we are already eating them.

Besides, I don't hate the US, just their leaders and elite. I have respect for the common people in the US. Already said it.

Well, indeed I haven't put much thought into it and there might very well be socio-economic and judicial aspects that are very worrying. I was really only thinking of the commonly expressed feeling that GMO's are somehow wrong or dangerous because they are not 'natural', expressed by rhubroma and RetroActive just now. So I won't disagree with you or anybody else for a moment concerning environmental or economical concerns, because I haven't researched it and I don't have a clue. I have thought (admittedly just a little) bit about human tinkering with the genes of our cattle and crops and I've so far come to the conclusion that we've done it for millenia with very good results so I don't see any intrinsic problems with modern techniques of doing this creating GMO's. However, when we put this in the modern context, there might very well be some economic or other concerns that should make us wary of GMO's.

(Oh and about the US, I was just kidding around a bit of course. There seems to be a more positive attitude towards the US in the North-Western part of Europe than in the South and the East; that's the only serious point I really wanted to make and it was just a passing note. )

 

[RetroActive]

Haven't we? I think there are some examples of cross breeding between species, the most famous example being the mule, which is a cross between a male donkey and a female horse. Plant hybrids are for instance a grapefruit, which is a cross of a pomelo and an orange.

I was just reading a bit about hybrids and it turns out that a lot of wheat cultivars are actually crosses between different species of wild grass. So even wheat, the staple of many Western diets, is the product of thousands of years of humans tinkering with nature. Wheat is an artificial product of humans, made by cross-breeding different wild species of grass and selecting the ones with the best traits for thousands of years.

Fair enough, Mules are infertile though like Ligers (lion tiger). Now we could stick some fish genes in a tomato and patent this new creation...hmmm, somehow I think it's a little different but I'm probably wrong.

 

[blutto]

...file under lest we forget...like because things have changed so much in the intervening time eh....

"Patrice Lumumba: the most important assassination of the 20th century"

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...atrice-lumumba-50th-anniversary-assassination

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

Drastic measures, now. Yeah it's a classic method when you have no argument against an opponent. Send him to a psychiatric asylum! Ezra Pound knows that.

So now let us remember why Beccaria (Enlightenment) advocated for the abolition of death penalty. Simply he wanted to commute it into penal servitude (lifetime ban of coursde). Simply he realised that death penalty was not profitable and that is how he thought it wiser to put the convict into slavery (he used the word).

There are many arguments against death penalty but if that is a good one, then I'd be in favour of restoring it. There's nothing humanising, nothing moral in the Enlightenment and certainly not that. It's all UTILITARIAN.

You are not my opponent. You are what you are worth. In any case, as far as your religion is concerned, the death penalty is hardly humanising.

 

[RetroActive]

After BSE: a crisis for science
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/28/bse.jamesmeek

It hasn't really gotten any better either, particularly when the big agri companies (chemical companies) are leading the science. It doesn't help that they display some really horrible ethics, legally speaking.

Confusion, even between the sciences.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/11/06/bill-nye-explains-gmo-skeptic/

The comments tell the story, the links and insults are flying. Polemics like climate science, some science type should start a thread here - science polemics.