U.S. approves Monsanto drought-tolerant GM corn

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Concerned for youtube's bandwidth but not the health of the planet? That's uh..quite rich. Maybe we have better access to more balanced information via youtube than just your opinion?

I just don't see the point in watching a video when I can read the same information several times faster than the video can present it to me.

Youtube has greatly degraded the quality of discussion on this, and other sites.

You can see which side of the fence I am on and therefore totally disinterested in your misinformation.

Translation: "I am only going to believe what agrees with me."

Deny ignorance, indeed.

I think the video's sum it up much better than you but I guess you didn't take the time to watch the facts presented in them either. Cell invasion, virus, poison. Sounds quite tasty, no?

I don't think you understood a fraction of what I said.

Yes, a retrovirus is often used to insert the gene into the genetic code of an organism. Welcome to 1965, is there anything else you need to learn about the era while we are here?

"Poison" is a relative term. A chocolate bar will make a dog very sick, as its biochemistry does not allow it to metabolize caffeine and certain types of sugars like our bodies can, and do (without a hitch). Many of the bacteria in our gut secrete substances that are toxic to other forms of bacteria and a few parasites - which helps protect us against infections.

You need to understand that the body doesn't see "Poison" - it sees a compound, a chemical that reacts with other chemicals in a manner that is governed by the laws of physics. Chemistry governs our bodies.

BT-Toxin is inert to the human body, and is broken down by our digestive process, to boot. It becomes a soup of amino acids.

Oh, and before GM got into the market, insulin came from pigs. I pray for genetic modification to genetic modificists this Xmas.

You mean... when it was more expensive?

And how is the insulin from pigs (created using the same gene as in our own bodies) different from the insulin created from yeast (also using that same gene)?

Doesn't that just confirm what GM proponents have been saying all along? That there's no real risk in taking existing genetic codes and transferring them to another species?

reply to post by Aim64C

Yawn... it's called looking at both sides of the coin. Pro's and con's. Ah yes, that old one, blame youtube and it's shocking misinfo. The videos's featured "medical professionals" giving their opinion and information on how it all "works". Please don't get me started on animal testing. I've seen those luminscent green pigs and cats.

I am indeed denying ignorance, yours, of the other side of the coin.

Good old condescension. Nice one! It adds so much to the discussion.

I'm well aware of chocolate being poisonous to dogs but what exactly does that have to do with this subject?" Now you want to modify dogs?

You are welcome to expound what you believe, as am I.

As for insulin being more expensive, possibly, in the US where the "health industry" *cough cough* is a parasite sucking the wallets dry of suffering people. I at least have the food fortune to live in a more social area where health, treatment and medicines are slightly more affordable and available to all for a reasonable price. Health insurance in Holland costs just over 100 euros a month and that will cover a lot. In my native UK it is covered by something called the National Health Service. It still sucks, but way less than the US.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Yawn... it's called looking at both sides of the coin. Pro's and con's.

You could start by attempting to understand the process.

Ah yes, that old one, blame youtube and it's shocking misinfo.

Not really. The problem with YouTube is that people like to link to 20-minute long videos that can be easily summed up in a page worth of information that takes five minutes to read.

In more worse cases, it allows people with poor understanding and command of the sciences to believe they have an adequate base for their opinion.

The videos's featured "medical professionals" giving their opinion and information on how it all "works".

Right. So there's no need for you to read through several other sources detailing the process and its derivations.

I'm well aware of chocolate being poisonous to dogs but what exactly does that have to do with this subject?" Now you want to modify dogs?

A product of state funded education, I see. You are attempting to equate a poison to insects as being a poison to humans in an attempt to justify your condemnation of genetically modified corn (which is not even the subject of this discussion - "BT-corn" is a different strain from the drought-tolerant strain). I was explaining to you that a "poison" is merely something that interferes with an organism's chemical function; and because of this, a poison to one is a food or performance enhancer to another - or vice-versa.

This was quite well explained within that same segment of my response.

Health insurance in Holland costs just over 100 euros a month and that will cover a lot. In my native UK it is covered by something called the National Health Service. It still sucks, but way less than the US.

Nope. You can get health insurance in the U.S. for less than $100 per month - and it cover a considerable number of expenses. Of course - we also have private practice and the option to 'shop' for doctors - with or without reimbursement from insurance companies.

Now, would you care to actually contribute any kind of real response to the points I made, earlier... or are you just going to continue down this line of asserting you are correct? If this is down to comparing e-erections, you've bitten off a bit more than you can chew, I'm afraid (an interesting combination of euphemisms ... let your imagination run wild with that one).

reply to post by Maxmars


One has to wonder why about Dwarf Wheat as well.....

Norman Borlaug would be turning over in his grave.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I eat no corn unless it is labeled "organic." In that way I ensure I am eating no GMO. Animals that eat it get sick! Not ME!

Weren't you homeless in one of your threads?

This is relevant because...?

Honestly, the "organic" label is merely that - a label used to justify a 60% mark-up or more.

Wrong. GMO cannot legally be labeled "organic" (yet...). And, in fact, organic does offer better options over the processed and GM foods.

Your preaching rights are revoked unless you have a garden out back that you get your produce from.

Who's "preaching?" (And what makes You the keeper of "preaching rights," for that matter?)

reply to post by Amaterasu

 

The issue is that when We GM an O, We have no way of knowing what all else is changed besides the factor We are aiming for.

No, that's not really how it works at all.

agbiosafety.unl.edu...

From Your link:

The new gene is inserted into some of the cells using various techniques. Some of the more common methods include the gene gun, agrobacterium, microfibers, and electroporation.

What do You think a "gene gun" does??? It shoots genes at cells in the hopes some will "take."

I really have no more to say here. You just go ahead and eat that GMO "food." (The employees of Monsanto don't - telling?) Me? I will avoid them like the plague they are.

reply to post by Aim64C

Past achievements of Monsanto include Agent Orange, DDT, bovine somatotropin (that's bovine growth hormone for us stupid state educated folks), among other things. No I totally trust them and you with our food supply. Enough of your nonsense. Good day.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Past achievements of Monsanto include Agent Orange,

They made it under order from the military - they didnt' invent it - and it was also made by Dow Chemicalsand Diamond Shamrock

DDT,

Again they didn't invent it, nor were they the only manufacturer. And of course DDT was famously thought of as a "wonder chemical" in the 1940's for improving the health of soldiers by wiping out disease carrying insects, with a Nobel Prize being awarded for discovering that use!

bovine somatotropin (that's bovine growth hormone for us stupid state educated folks),

Err...no - they invented the process for synthesising it - which made it much more readily available, but cows actually invented it!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Since 1994 it has been possible to synthesize the hormone using recombinant DNA technology to create recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. Monsanto was the first to develop the technology and marketed it as "Posilac" - a brand now owned by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company.
It's still an evil company though. And that ^ ^ is not natural.

Here is an article from May 2011 on GMO labeling definitions useful for the U.S. & Canada:

gmo-awareness.com...

Buying 100% Organic, Certified Organic, and USDA Organic-labeled products is usually the easiest way to avoid genetically modified ingredients.

The United States and Canadian governments do NOT allow companies to label products “100% / Certified Organic” if they contain genetically modified foods.

100% Organic: Must contain 100 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). This is the only label that certifies a completely organic product AND completely GMO-free ingredients.

Certified Organic / USDA Organic / Organic: At least 95 percent of content is organic by weight (excluding water and salt). The

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


I said they "invented" synthetic hormone - clearly not natural...what is your point??

A company cannot be evil - only people can be evil

There is a reason the genetic code to these GMO plants is kept secret by the courts under the pretense that this is "proprietary" information. The actual reason for the secrecy is the alterior motive of GMO's being used as population control. Corn was one of the first plants that was genetically modified to produce anti-sperm antibodies and thus lead to infertility. You may find the following article interesting:

salem-news.com...

reply to post by qver74


You may find this ATS post more interesting for pointing out the obvious drivel that article is - www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by AllUrChips


You know the only thing I love about truths like this ? The replies show who you need to remember as a part of this rotten system . You know who you are don't you?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by qver74

 

You may find this ATS post more interesting for pointing out the obvious drivel that article is - www.abovetopsecret.com...

It sounds like you don't believe the source I posted. The Guardian has a similar article:

www.guardian.co.uk...

I see governments are again bowing to Bill Gates' wishes.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...
Gates Foundation ties with Monsanto under fire from activists

By Maureen O'Hagan and Kristi Heim
Originally published Saturday, August 28, 2010

Seattle Times staff reporters

For two years, local activists on a shoestring budget have been trying to document connections between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Monsanto, the company vilified by some for its heavy involvement in genetic engineering of crops.

Try as they might, their work got little attention.

That all changed with the news, reported by The Wall Street Journal last week, that Monsanto was among the foundation's most recent portfolio investments. A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission says the foundation bought 500,000 shares of the stock between April and June; on Friday, the total value was $27.6 million.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

My point? I thought it was quite simple. The administering of unnatural levels of hormones just for production is wrong, And unhealthy.

Findings indicated an average increase in milk output ranging from 11%-16%, a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. The same study reported a decrease in body condition score for cows treated with rBST even though there was an increase in their dry matter intake.

In 1994 a European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows.[13] The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used.

The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone.[2] Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier.

Source

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Past achievements of Monsanto include Agent Orange

An absolutely stellar chemical used to destroy foliage. One of the best that exists for that purpose.

DDT

Another excellent pesticide. Unfortunately, improper use and completely logic-defying incidents of exposure gave it a poor reputation. Newer agents are no different. People kill themselves with water - those smart enough to outwit the cunning exploits of water do not always outwit their choice pesticide. You've got to be smarter than what you work with.

bovine somatotropin (that's bovine growth hormone for us stupid state educated folks)

So, it makes pigs grow faster. Means greater supplies of pork products and thus a lower cost to the consumer. Meat consumption separates the second and first worlds.

Now, I'm sure you have some you tube video that explains how this is of grave concern and results in us being dumbed down.

My response to that is to take a step outside. Visit any social function and simply observe.

If you wish to see them not act in a manner that you find to be disgraceful to the concept of sentience, then I suggest you, first, target those who market alcohol as a substance essential to any social function. You'll have to end with a concentrated eugenics program, however. Let's face it - stravags are our problem.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

My point? I thought it was quite simple. The administering of unnatural levels of hormones just for production is wrong, And unhealthy.

So why lay it at Monsanto's door?? AFAIK they don't hold a gun to anyone's head to force hem to use it do they?

Shouldn't you be pissed at consumers who demand more and cheaper meat, and farmers who give it to them??

reply to post by Amaterasu

This is relevant because...?

This is why I test in the 99 percentile.

Wrong.

You really didn't understand what I stated.

GMO cannot legally be labeled "organic" (yet...).

Correct. However, have you not questioned why -every- brand has begun marketing their own "organic" versions of things? Great Value has organic products, for God's sake.

Why the rush?

My question identifies and explains itself. Merely placing the label "organic" on something (even if it met the requirements for being "organic" decades before there being an "organic" label) is profitable. Enough so to justify serious changes to marketing strategies and production quotas.

In short - there's money in it. Lots of it.

And, in fact, organic does offer better options over the processed and GM foods.

And what do you get for the extra money you spend on food?

A longer life?

How much longer? Where's the evidence for this?

A better quality of life?

Please elaborate, if so. Again, where is the evidence for this?

And here's the most important facet to consider: Does the evidence suggest that organic foods are worth the 60% average increase in food prices (particularly fresh produce) are worth it for someone's given income level and goals?

When you're young - living in a frugal manner and saving so that you have an economic safety net is important. It is also important in enabling you to purchase larger items later on in life (houses, vehicles, entrepreneurial endeavors, etc). Meanwhile, you should be aiming to increase your mean income by building a career. (I say "should" - presuming one's goals in life are similar to what is often identified as the average person's goals).

Sure - when you are in a more established career - spending an extra 60% on your food may not be a big issue, and amounts to a personal choice.

However, when you're younger and still starting a career... is that really worth it? Or does it simply place an unrealistic strain upon your finances?

Ultimately, I cannot, in good faith, recommend "organic" foods to anyone - as there is simply not any evidence to suggest the additional cost is worth the result (which shows no correlation between GMO foods and any health risk).

Who's "preaching?" (And what makes You the keeper of "preaching rights," for that matter?)

Like anything - you are free to challenge me. You just have been warned that I no longer consider you entitled to a sermon.

What do You think a "gene gun" does??? It shoots genes at cells in the hopes some will "take."

*sigh*

Wording is key with me, child. There is a considerable difference between the process -involving- a gene gun and "shooting seeds with DNA and seeing what takes." A cell line is bombarded with heavy-metal elements impregnated with a DNA strand. Surviving cells are cultured and analyzed, with some eventually being induced to grow into a plant (although we can be talking a wide range of cell types, here).

What you infer is a radically different concept.

I really have no more to say here.

But you'll be back.

You just go ahead and eat that GMO "food." (The employees of Monsanto don't - telling?)

I suppose you have a source for this?

Of course, if I were a geneticist or otherwise pulling considerable amounts of money in - I would have my own garden and have a tenant hired to help me take care of it. Not because it's "organic" (I, actually, don't give a damned) - but because I can pick it when it's ripe, rather than when it is green (to ripen at the store or after I've bought it).

Me? I will avoid them like the plague they are.

I'm curious as to how you will do this, since you are self-proclaimed as being homeless.

"Organic" dry-stock isn't all that much more than ... not-"organic" varieties. But the price is noticeable in canned goods... and only gets worse as you go to frozen and fresh varieties. I can't help but assume you have more pressing concerns.

Unless you are eating "organic" dog food... I suppose that could be cost-effective.

Moreover.... I have to wonder.... who goes around and does gene sequencing on the produce in stores? What is the penalty for improper labeling? A fine? Or does the military tomahawk their headquarters?

You know... I admit defeat. You -should- be worried about the genetic profile of the food you are eating. However - government regulators at the FDA are horribly busy and cannot adequately sample your food supply, and the penalties for failure to comply with labeling regulations is, often, insufficient to deter misleading labels.

Therefor, I suggest we bring in third-party inspectors. I just so happen to have a few friends with the requisite skills to do this. However, there will be a fee for their services.