1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.

Attention Californians, Do you know about prop 37? (its coming this November!)

Discussion in 'The Vapor Lounge' started by Nycdeisel, Sep 28, 2012.

  1. Nycdeisel

    Nycdeisel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,946
    Location:
    nyc
    Theres a lot of problems with GMOs. But lets start with a basic safety issue. Theres never been a study done about the long term health effects. Though one very interesting study on rats fed GM corn just came out. It also makes no logical sense as to why it would be able to supply more since it infact pollutes the soil and the entire ecosystem even more(as if we havent polluted and fucked shit up enough).
     
    Tamataz likes this.
  2. OO

    OO Technical Skeptical

    Messages:
    1,167
    Location:
    Paraphernalia Museum
    i could repeat, but i feel like i'm wasting my time.
    E V I D E N C E.
     
    Frederick McGuire likes this.
  3. thesoloman

    thesoloman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Temecula
    Ok im going to write a damn essay for everyone hah, ok.
    First of their are a few main traits that have been genetically engeneried into our food supply, and even downright scary gmo-experements. Okay, so their is a Company called monsanto, they invented many tings including DDt and Agent Orange, which were both advertised as being non-harmfull, DDt was actually advertised as good for you!! (http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/ddt.jpg), Monsanto also invented a broad spectrum herbicide called glyphosate, you are probably more familier with Glyphosate in its branded bottle with the Round-Up label on it. In the 1990's Monsanto discovered that they could take a gene from a soil bacteria that was resistant to round-up and isolate the specific gene responsible for this resistance. Once the gene was isolated it was transfered into a soy seed which when grown is resistant to the applications of round-up .When Monsanto Genetically Engeners a seed they take out a patent on the seed, making the age old tradition of seed saving illegal. Farmers found guilty of saving Monsanto's seeds can face huge fines and even property forfeiture if monsanto can prove that the farmer has their seeds technology in his crops, even if he saved seeds from his own crop of seeds he purchased from monsanto durring the previous year. Non-Gmo farmers are constantly faced with the prospect of their crops genetic integrity being compromised by the introduction of a G.E. pollen, which would then leave the farmer open for a lawsuit by monsanto. Monsanto has used this corrupt system to monopolize the food supply of America and most of the world. Additionally once a farmer plants round-up ready crops they also need to spray large amounts of Round-up , which is bought from monsanto.
    Not even mentioned above are the numerous human health effects associated with exposure to round-up which is a Carcinogen(something everyone on FC is constantly trying to avoid.)
    In the early 2000's a san diego based company called Epycite created a Gmo Spermicide corn that causes infertility in a male who consumes even a small amount of this corn.
    I could go on to tell of the problems with Bt- familly of gmos, but i feel i have made a strong enough point already, if anyone would like more information on the subject or would even like to buttheads on the subject with me feel free to contact me, and ill be happy to chat.
    EDIT:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html
    http://www.naturalnews.com/036315_Syngenta_GM_corn_livestock_deaths.html
    EDIT2 http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
    Edit 3 If you have faith in the F.D.A. protecting your health think again http://www.naturalnews.com/034847_Michael_Taylor_Monsanto_FDA.html
    http://www.naturalnews.com/037289_Monsanto_corporations_ethics.html
     
    Nycdeisel and Tamataz like this.
  4. Tamataz

    Tamataz Icelander

    Messages:
    188

    Exactly. We need to think about our future. We (humans) are overpopulating the earth. We are taking up so much land, and using up so many materials, and even almost depleting them. We are the most wasteful species on the planet. Pollution, chemicals, littering, overfishing etc. I dont know if you know, but we are making a MAJOR impact to the earth badly as we speak, seriously. We continue to destroy forests, driving multiple species into extinction; damaging major ecosystems.These species will NEVER return...:( There are a estimated 3200 tigers left on earth as of now, from the year 1970 estimation of 40,000 tigers. In the whole earth's existence, it has never has such selfish species. If you look at the history of earth, we are making a making a huge negative impact in a very short time compared to anything else ever lived.

    We need to figure out stuff by going back to the roots. Doing things the natural way, more effectively. I believe this genetically altering methods are a short term solution. We need a solution that doesn't just prolong a disaster. We are fast forwarding the death of our own race.
     
  5. Nycdeisel

    Nycdeisel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,946
    Location:
    nyc
    Great posts Tamataz and Soloman! Thanks for the contributions :D :tup:
     
    Tamataz likes this.
  6. yelooo

    yelooo Member

    Messages:
    23
    I would be interested in seeing your evidence. It seems to me absurd that, given modern levels of scientific excellence in bioengireering you would think scientists incapable of increasing yeilds through genetic modification.

    In fact most of the arguments against GM I have read don't claim that scientists couldn't achieve this. Instead it is argued that the risks are too great to proceed, and outweigh any possible benefits.

    I take the opposite view.

    Why are you sure?

    Indeed. In fact, I would say unless one happens to be a leading microbiologist, we all probably wouldnt fully understand the evidence anyway.

    I fully understand that people feel uncomfortable with "messing with nature", but I put it to you that starting with farming and continuing with selective breeding, we have been "messing with nature" for tens of thousands of years. The result of which is high yielding farm animals and crops that bear little to no resemblence to their wild "natural" cousins.

    Is GM really so different from selective breeding? Isn't it just the next step that our advancing scientific brilliance has allowed?
     
    Frederick McGuire likes this.
  7. Nycdeisel

    Nycdeisel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,946
    Location:
    nyc
    Some more questions: Are GMOs created in a lab? Has "selective breeding" ever been done in the lab?

    EVen George Bush senior looked hesitant to make GMOs! Theres a video somewhere of him in the lab with the "scientists" injecting some garbage.
     
  8. Tamataz

    Tamataz Icelander

    Messages:
    188
    You could never get me to believe that they know all the effects. And even if there were any, that could be a health hazard, they would probably not mention it and continue. Government wouldn't lie right? Humans are not gods, we make mistakes, scientists, teacher and doctors aren't always right. That's why you get a second opinion if something's serious.

    DDT's was used as pesticides for farming all over America. Agent Orange, both major health hazard that "weren't" known. Agent orange was sprayed all over Vietnam in order to kill forests and expose the Vietnamese.

    Obviously GM'ed food wouldn't have such a drastic effect, but I'm making a point we dont always know everything.

    Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) was used as a refrigerant and other stuff, then we discovered it was eating away the ozone layer.

    I encourage everyone to look at the documentary "Food Inc." It is well done and very informative film talking about the food situation in America. It goes into the food we eat, and covers a little bit about genetic modifications/engineered foods. Effects from mass production of meat and corn, when companies are trying to make processes quicker, and cheaper. Pushing the limits. Its ugly. Because most people want profit these days, not equal well-being of everyone.
     
    Nycdeisel likes this.
  9. yelooo

    yelooo Member

    Messages:
    23
    Why does the fact that they are created and tested in a lab alarm you? Medicine is created in a lab. Many thousands of new chemicals and substances that have benefited humanity greatly have been created in a lab.


    I think you make a good point about DDT, that's why it is essential that trials are allowed to be conducted wihout crops being destroyed by protesters.

    However the argument that we shouldnt proceed with something that could save millions of lives every year, "because we don't know aevrything" I think is hopelessly pessimistic. You could have said the same thing about every scientific advance, particualrly medicine.

    Should we have created penicilin? Well "we can never know everything" and "You could never get me to believe that they know all the effects. And even if there were any, that could be a health hazard, they would probably not mention it and continue"

    Should we have persued a vaccine for smallpox? Well "we can never know everything" and "You could never get me to believe that they know all the effects. And even if there were any, that could be a health hazard, they would probably not mention it and continue"

    Should we be looking for a cure for cancer? Well "we can never know everything" and "You could never get me to believe that they know all the effects. And even if there were any, that could be a health hazard, they would probably not mention it and continue"

    If someone said to you, "I think I can invent a drug that could cure cancer, it could save millions of lives every year. But I'm not fully sure of all the side-effects." Would you say "stop immediatedly"? or would you say "test it, and if it works without the side-effects being too bad, proceed".
     
  10. t-dub

    t-dub Vapor Sloth

    Messages:
    4,698
    Location:
    Oregon
    And medicine has many, many, unintended consequences, they are called "side effects" and "complications". I deal with them every day. Hundreds of thousands of people die in hospitals every year from side effects from drugs, administered by professionals . . .
    Your argument ignores one HUGE fact and that is pollution of the gene pool by release of these things in the wild. How exactly do we clean that up if we find out we NEED to later? You think nuclear radiation is hard to get rid of . . .
    We didn't create bread mold and its survival strategy, nature did.
    Louis Pasteur discovered a way to do a basic training on our immune system using weakened Anthrax. A manipulation of a natural process, our immune system. New vaccine technology contains ingredients that Dr. Pasteur would never have imagined . . .
    You're getting pissy here and missing the point in your arrogance. There is a reason only seeds from heirloom varieties will propagate, the long term effects of lab DNA manipulation are not known but samples are being released into the environment, like the salmon on the east coast for instance. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I understand things will be tested on patients. I'm blazing new trails for people who will follow me medically, BUT I am informed to the risks (as best as can be expected), and I am well advised by my wellness team, even with no FDA guidelines on what I'm doing, and am able to make my choice. This GMO thing is no where near as transparent, and with Monsanto (or is it Dow?) now graduating to 2,4-D because the BT stuff isn't working anymore (and its creating super resistant weeds that refuse to die) . . well that is just fucked because that was a primary component of Agent Orange, which they want to start spraying on our food now? Ahhh . . no thanks, I'll pass.
     
    Tamataz and Nycdeisel like this.
  11. yelooo

    yelooo Member

    Messages:
    23
    Though, I think on the whole, despite the side-effects, people would rather have modern medicne than not.

    Though I think the argument is still valid, there are plenty of synthetic drugs that do a lot of good.

    I was trying to use examples of famous discoveries that have saved lives, as an analogy for why we should still proceed with science when we don't know the risks or consequences, perhaps my analogies weren't very good.

    I fully admit I don't understand the process, or the side-effects, I am not qualified to do so. Few are.

    I also don't doubt that there are serious issues that must be addressed, nor being so uninformed, do I seek defend the practices of all corporations involved.

    My argument is that the potential good of GM foods, outweighs the potential risks. And I have faith in the scientists to deliver. Perhaps you would call this blind faith, it probably is. But in the modern world of specilization we all have to have faith that scientists in their fields know what they are doing, don't we? After all its not just the development of GM food that is fraught with risks.

    And finally, I am arguing for a view opposing yours, but I dont think that makes me arrogant or pissy. Actually I thought that this thread has been a pretty good debate about an important issue.
     
  12. t-dub

    t-dub Vapor Sloth

    Messages:
    4,698
    Location:
    Oregon
    Repetitive poor analogies, sorry, my opinion of your "style", nothing more, nothing less.

    There is no way you can possibly know that . . .

    No we don't, at least I don't. Feel free to do as you wish of course. Thats what makes freedom great, informed choice, but I WANT that informed choice.

    Absolutely, thats why we learn as much as we can and make the best decisions we can, but like I said, these GMOs are not being policed the same way as traditional medicine. There is so much of this stuff in the food supply already. Companies like Monsanto and Dow are getting a pass. The BT poison kills insects by exploding their stomachs. I find find it interesting that they are starting to open up pigs fed BT corn and finding inflamed stomachs . . . In the end you pay your money and you make your choice. My choice is not GMO :peace:
     
    Tamataz and Nycdeisel like this.
  13. Nycdeisel

    Nycdeisel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,946
    Location:
    nyc
    I dont know, Tdub, i think the GMO companies just MIGHT be getting policed like traditional medicine... ;)
     
    t-dub likes this.
  14. t-dub

    t-dub Vapor Sloth

    Messages:
    4,698
    Location:
    Oregon
    I have a right to know whats in my food, so just label it . . .

    "Over 90% of Americans support FDA mandated labeling of genetically engineered foods. Check out this video to see to stars like, Michael J Fox, Ziggy Marley and 25 others celebrities join the millions to voice their support for GE labeling!"

    http://justlabelit.org/

     
    Nycdeisel and thesoloman like this.
  15. thesoloman

    thesoloman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Temecula
    I support labeling, i have a question for the Pro-Gmo crowd, IF a company spent billions on its R'nD' why would they spend millions on concealing their products? sound a little shady?
     
    Nycdeisel and t-dub like this.
  16. OO

    OO Technical Skeptical

    Messages:
    1,167
    Location:
    Paraphernalia Museum
    Sir, it seems less like you are arguing that GMO's are harmful, and more like there is a douchebag business who has undermined the functionality of capitalism.
    I am familiar with monsanto and their behavior, but it is really irrelevant, it in no way establishes a link between the majority of GMO food and harmfulness.
    I hate them too, as an avid gardener and capitalist.

    If I'm honest, I would like to find a source for this corn.
     
    yelooo likes this.
  17. OO

    OO Technical Skeptical

    Messages:
    1,167
    Location:
    Paraphernalia Museum
    I'm no microbiologist, but I do have significant interest in agriculture, and do have a fairly good scientific background, only about as much as someone who wikicomas chemistry topics 5 days a week for a year.

    Your outlook is very similar to the one i have arrived at at this point and time. In nature, organisms mutate their genetics constantly, it's a survival trait.

    also yes, humans have been doing gene selection for years, and without labs, they just breed selectively. Has noone noticed the impact of this on our ecosystem? in many ways, this has a larger impact than GMO. But I digress, the changes in the ecosystem are to be expected, in fact they cannot be avoided when trying to feed the human population.

    cite an example?
     
  18. thesoloman

    thesoloman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Temecula
    Selective breeding NEVER crossed species boundaries, let alone kingdoms, what these scientists are doing in the lab is completely unnatural and couldn't and wouldn't happen in nature. To address your call for evidence of regarding the proposition 37 funding here is a kcet.org summarization of the donors. http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrie...p-37-funding-genetically-engineered-food.html While you recognize the shady business practices i find it intriguing that you do not see a link between shady business practices and pushing toxic products go hand in hand?
     
    Tamataz likes this.
  19. OO

    OO Technical Skeptical

    Messages:
    1,167
    Location:
    Paraphernalia Museum
    Bullshit.
    selective breeding has crossed species boundaries, look at okra, or the mule, or the lyger.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopolyploid#Allopolyploidy
    as for kingdom boundaries, I suspect humans haven't done it intentionally, but I'd have to do more research.
    I was never interested in the funding.
    I guess I must have misinterpreted the meaning of what you were saying.
    They don't want people to be dismissive of any benefit their product might provide. People are very "fear driven." and they especially fear what they don't comprehend.

    shady business practice shares no relevancy with pushing toxic products. it shares more commonality with greed and power in this particular instance.
     
  20. thesoloman

    thesoloman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Temecula
    People have crossed kindoms on the Genetic level with Genetic mutations such as Bt-Corn, http://www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp
    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/regofbtcrops.htm
     
  21. yelooo

    yelooo Member

    Messages:
    23
    Ah that's my point exactly! There's also no way you can possibly know that there will be terrible consequences to GM food either. I should have thought that theres only a handful of leading scientists worldwide that are even really qualified to give an opinion on this based on the scientific evidence. That's why I have tired to make my argument in this thread essentially a moral one instead. Which brings me on to another of your points.

    Our modern world is made by specialists. In science this is particularly true. The age of the great 18th century polymath amatuer, like Thomas Jefferson, is over. You say you want informed consent, but I say that given the complexity and huge variety of the different fields of science this is practically impossible. Therefore we have two choices, we place our faith in leading scientists, or we dismiss their research according to our current cultural prejudices.

    Yes supervision is important, but thats what professional and academic peer review is for. There is an in-built safeguard within the system. I say let them get on with their work.
     
  22. t-dub

    t-dub Vapor Sloth

    Messages:
    4,698
    Location:
    Oregon
    So erring on the side of caution should be a no brainer then . . . you still have NOT answered how we are supposed to clean up the gene pool . . .
    No, you have 2 choices. I choose to let the "specialists" do what they do while I watch, study and inform myself as best as possible. Community gardens and university extension services are amazing resources. There are supposed to be safeguards in place to keep these scientists and the corporations they work for honest, and the info flowing, but fascism and corruption in America, and seemingly the world, rule.

    Edit: Millions of GMO Mosquitoes Released Without Risk Assessment or Oversight

    "If the following report from Testbiotech doesn’t send chills up your spine, I don’t know what will. Get ready world, because nothing will ever be the same. Ever. There is no remediation technique available to clean up genetically engineered mutations released into the wild and spread through horizontal gene transfer.

    The briefing highlights multiple attempts by Oxitec to influence regulation around the world, which have included:
    • Attempts to define ‘biological containment’ of the insects (which are programmed to die at the larval stage) as contained use, by-passing requirements for risk assessments and consultation on decisions to release GM insects into the environment;
    • Attempts to avoid any regulation of GM agricultural pests on crops which will end up in the food chain;
    • Avoidance of any discussion of how GM insects can be contained at a site, or products produced using GM insects can be labelled;
    • Exclusion of many important issues from risk assessments, including impacts of surviving GM mosquitoes on the environment and health, and impacts of changing mosquito populations on human immunity and disease;
    • Failure to follow transboundary notification processes for exports of GM insects correctly;
    • Undermining the requirement to obtain informed consent for experiments involving insect species which transmit disease;
    • Attempts to avoid liability for any harm if anything goes wrong;
    • Pushing ahead with large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes before relevant guidance or regulations are adopted."
    http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/Briefing genetically engineered Insects.pdf
     
    Tamataz and Nycdeisel like this.
  23. OO

    OO Technical Skeptical

    Messages:
    1,167
    Location:
    Paraphernalia Museum
    I should have been more specific. I meant during the pre-modern gene splicing days.

    I'm going to research this further, but how is the relevant to labeling GM food?
     
  24. Tamataz

    Tamataz Icelander

    Messages:
    188
    ^because it still applies, we are modifying nature, that cant be easily (or at all) be reversed. It's permanent change (correct me if I'm wrong) that may be damaging to society, health, ecology.

    Its not like medicine, where we develop pill, and whether or not its bad we can just remove it and stop producing it. But with genetically modifying stuff it will keep on living, and may grow to take over all "untainted" organisms?
     
  25. OO

    OO Technical Skeptical

    Messages:
    1,167
    Location:
    Paraphernalia Museum
    nature is modifying itself constantly. what problems have we caused? as far as if the problems are permanent, that depends on a number of factors, but for the mean time, many are 'short term' permanent. I keep hearing 'may be' being thrown around alot. where's the proof?

    I myself do wonder what the harm is if a beneficial gene spreads throughout the pool. What's the drawbacks?
     

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors