Non-Browning Apple Genetically Modified To Stay Crisp

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Cut with the gloom already. The WHOLE PLANET is an experiment. The experimenting did not start with GM food. The experiment is ages old. Far as we know, life has ALWAYS been experimenting.

Earth is transforming into a spaceship. We live and learn and the world changes independent of us. Life is imagination in creation. NOTHING is exactly as it was a moment before.

Everything changes. Don't hold onto the past. Learn from your mistakes.

I get tired too. I hate this world sometimes for the same reasons. But we can't stop things from changing. We either keep pace with them or we fall behind and eventually die. This is what happens when we die a natural death. It's also what happens when we ignore reality. These changes around us are reality. The more distant we're from them, the harder it's for us to survive.

So... from my perspective this thread is embracing death, not life. I say this because the common theme of this thread is to hold tight to the past. To distance from reality. To slowly die.

This universe is change. To embrace unchanging things is to embrace death.

Want to embrace living? Then accept that GM foods are here to stay and police them. Get rid of the ones that harm things too much. But don't condemn all GM food just because some is bad.
edit on 15-7-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Wow, so time going ahead is your measurement of good vs. bad?
You have simplified it to that extreme extent?

As long as it's tomorrow not yesterday it's nothing to oppose?




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
GM foods are not bad. Not understanding the process and how GM foods are created...that's bad. People who are against GM foods make me remember a decent phrase about god: ''I don't understand, therefore GOD!''

Remember folks...deny ignorance.

Cheers



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 

So how bout an honest question. If you have a child, will you feed gmo products to them without reservation?
Granted manipulation of plants is age old but not the marriage of animal and plant genes. This is only part of what they do, but since there is no labeling, how do we the consumer know whether the gmo fruit/vegetable is just plant genetic splicing, or dow we have fish genes in our strawberries?

If gmo is not a big deal, then the industry should welcome labeling. There is also the issue of gmo effect on the environment and other species.
Here are a couple of good articles to ponder:
www.enveurope.com...
www.foodandwaterwatch.org...

I guess it is the uncertainty that concerns me, and the lasting effects, if any. I do appreciate your stance, but I just can not give this gmo thing a green light. I think they potentially position profits before people.

Peace



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by DavidWillts
 

So how bout an honest question. If you have a child, will you feed gmo products to them without reservation?

Yes people have been doing this for years.



This is only part of what they do, but since there is no labeling, how do we the consumer know whether the gmo fruit/vegetable is just plant genetic splicing, or dow we have fish genes in our strawberries?

It s pretty simple, if it does not have an "organic" label on it, it is probably GMO.



If gmo is not a big deal, then the industry should welcome labeling.

I really don't care about the labeling. All it will really do is drive up the price of organic food even further because of all the testing that will have to be done to ensure it is not a GMO plant and has not been contaminated.



There is also the issue of gmo effect on the environment and other species.

Which again is mostly made up and twisted data.



I think they potentially position profits before people.


Really? So the organic industry which according to them is more efficient in every way and somehow costs more is in no way taking advantage of people?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


You are conflating selective breeding and gene splicing. They are not the same thing.

Apples and oranges, if you will.

TO be honest, all your proGMO arguments are based on misrepresentations of the truth. I would call them lies, but that's giving you too much credit. It would appear you just dont know what you are talking about.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 




You are conflating selective breeding and gene splicing. They are not the same thing.

You are making stuff up and posting it, I have said no such thing.



TO be honest, all your proGMO arguments are based on misrepresentations of the truth. I would call them lies, but that's giving you too much credit. It would appear you just dont know what you are talking about.

Then please,specifically correct me.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by stanguilles7
 




You are conflating selective breeding and gene splicing. They are not the same thing.

You are making stuff up and posting it, I have said no such thing.


Yes, you did. You just stated that Genetic modification is the same as selective breeding over generations.




Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by stanguilles7
 
Then please,specifically correct me.


I did. Right here, where I eviscerated your laughable inaccurate understanding of the concerns with GMO Bt crops. But you ignored me:


Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by DavidWillts


Bt is another organic mystery to someone who possesses the ability to use critical thinking skills. The organic farming crowd has continually vilified Bt through their attacks on Monsanto's Bt crops. Yet organic farmers spray that all over their crops too.


The problem with GM engineered Bt corn is not the Bt. It's that their use of Bt-engineered corn makes the small levels of application of Bt to organic crops less effective. Bt is a GREAT tool for Organic farmers to deal with pests on a micro level. Monsantos approach is making bugs immune to Bt, which takes a useful tool away from organic farmers.

Of course, if you actually knew what you were talking abut, you would know this.But you just trolling


Here's a source study you wont read or understand:
www.enveurope.com...
edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 




Yes, you did. You just stated that Genetic modification is the same as selective breeding over generations.

Post the quote, i said no such thing. You are just making stuff up because you have no real argument.



I did. Right here, where I eviscerated your laughable inaccurate understanding of the concerns with GMO Bt crops. But you ignored me:

That in no way adressed the issue of BT being dangerous when it is on GMO crops but 100% safe when it is sprayed on by the gallon for organic crops. Or how money magically made Rotenone legal again.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


That in no way adressed the issue of BT being dangerous when it is on GMO crops but 100% safe when it is sprayed on by the gallon for organic crops. Or how money magically made Rotenone legal again.


Yes, it did. You see, I explained (and provided a source) that the argument against Bt engineered crops from Organic farmers is that it makes their small-scale application of the same product useless, because it's large-scale use in GMO crops renders bugs immune.

Bt is not harmful to humans when used in a spot-spray method. Although it likely IS very harmful to humans when they ingest plants that have had it spliced into their genes.

You misrepresent the argument to suit your own convoluted claims.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Please post the quote where i said GMO was the same as as selective breeding, do it now.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


That in no way adressed the issue of BT being dangerous when it is on GMO crops but 100% safe when it is sprayed on by the gallon for organic crops. Or how money magically made Rotenone legal again.


Yes, it did. You see, I explained (and provided a source) that the argument against Bt engineered crops from Organic farmers is that it makes their small-scale application of the same product useless, because it's large-scale use in GMO crops renders bugs immune.

Bt is not harmful to humans when used in a spot-spray method. Although it likely IS very harmful to humans when they ingest plants that have had it spliced into their genes.

You misrepresent the argument to suit your own convoluted claims.


No it appears that it happens to be what you are doing. Where in the study you linked to does it mention this stuff that you are saying?



www.enveurope.com...
Background

In 2008/2009, Schmidt and colleagues published a study reporting lethal effects of the microbial Bt toxins Cry1Ab and Cry3Bb on the coccinellid biological control organisms Adalia bipunctata. Based on this study, in concert with over 30 other publications, Mon810 cultivation was banned in Germany in 2009. This triggered two commentaries and one experimental study all published in the journal 'Transgenic Research' that question the scientific basis of the German ban or claim to disprove the adverse effects of the Bt toxins on A. bipunctata reported by Schmidt and colleagues, respectively. This study was undertaken to investigate the underlying reasons for the different outcomes and rebuts the criticism voiced by the two other commentaries.
Results

It could be demonstrated that the failure to detect an adverse effect by Alvarez-Alfageme and colleagues is based on the use of a significantly different testing protocol. While Schmidt and colleagues exposed and fed larvae of A. bipunctata continuously, Alvarez-Alfageme and colleagues applied an exposure/recovery protocol. When this exposure/recovery protocol was applied to a highly sensitive target insect, Ostrinia nubilalis, the lethal effect was either significantly reduced or disappeared altogether. When repeating the feeding experiments with the Bt toxin Cry1Ab using a combined protocol of both previous studies, again, a lethal effect on A. bipunctata larvae was observed. ELISA tests with Bt-toxin fed larvae and pupae confirmed ingestion of the toxin.
Conclusions

The new data corroborates earlier findings that Cry1Ab toxin increases mortality in A. bipunctata larvae. It was also shown that the different applied testing protocols explained the contrasting results.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts


No it appears that it happens to be what you are doing. Where in the study you linked to does it mention this stuff that you are saying?


What are you taking exception with in my argument, exactly?

Here's what I said:


the argument against Bt engineered crops from Organic farmers is that it makes their small-scale application of the same product useless, because it's large-scale use in GMO crops renders bugs immune.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 



Yes people have been doing this for years.

So do you expect it to be okay for all parents to dismiss any concern at all to a product that is new to our planet and created in a lab? What about so many other countries that have banned gmo's? Are they all clueless and should disregard any concerns and feed this stuff to their kids? I guess we just see it different.


It s pretty simple, if it does not have an "organic" label on it, it is probably GMO.

True, but do you see how that just kind of happened, and is unique to the US? Is that fair when it comes to things we eat?


Which again is mostly made up and twisted data.

Well that is a bit insulting and empty. Are you not aware of terminator seeds and how their product effects plants in adjacent fields? Do you think the gm salmon that scientists and industry try to prevent getting out of their 'sea cages' to breed with other salmon is all hype? Then why the cages? There are also sterility and fertility concerns with consumption of these items.

As you probably know the reason why there’s such heated controversy over the allowance of GM crops is due to their many health dangers, and the fact that their genes are capable of transferring to non-GM plants ‘horizontally,’ which means you cannot contain them. They absolutely WILL contaminate their conventional and organic counterparts, so one day soon there may be no such thing as “GM-free,” because everything will be contaminated – especially with the recent approval of GM alfalfa.

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that genetically engineered foods are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Smith has documented at least 65 serious health risks from GM food products.

Among them:

Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
Many US farmers report sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed GM corn
Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products
There are countless examples of GM crop failures, as well as GM-associated toxicity being observed in animals fed the plants. For instance, a farmer in Denmark became frustrated because his pigs were sick. The pigs had chronic diarrhea, birth defects, reproductive problems, reduced appetite, bloating, stomach ulcers, weaker and smaller piglets, and reduced litter sizes – and they were being fed GM soybeans.

The farmer looked into the effects of GM foods and their associated herbicides, and stopped feeding his 450 sows GM soy, giving them non-GM fishmeal instead. It only took two days for him to see noticeable results -- for the better.v


articles.mercola.com...
There is a term called Precautionary Principle that states the uncertainty itself is of concern with these gmos. It is the 'newness' of this industry coupled with it's prolificness that causes a little scare.


Really? So the organic industry which according to them is more efficient in every way and somehow costs more is in no way taking advantage of people?

For a superior and natural product, free from chemicals, I say no, it is not taking advantage of people. You do understand why it costs more right? Because chemical fertilizer is cheap and abundant, but that does not make it a better and safer product, imo. Do you think profits ever come before people? I think when something new is brought into this world that is highly profitable, shortcuts and compromises are taken to bypass stringent and long term effect testing. Then when the testing becomes cumbersome and costly, they just ship it to India and test it on them, where there are less regulations.

So in concluding, it is my opinion that the degree of uncertainty itself is enough to warrant concern and further testing by independent researchers. With so many other countries banning this stuff, I just do not think it is fair to stock the shelves with disregard for concern from the public.

spec



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 




So do you expect it to be okay for all parents to dismiss any concern at all to a product that is new to our planet and created in a lab? What about so many other countries that have banned gmo's? Are they all clueless and should disregard any concerns and feed this stuff to their kids? I guess we just see it different.


You asked me if i would feed my kids GMO and I said yes, i had not idead it would trigger such a rant.



True, but do you see how that just kind of happened, and is unique to the US? Is that fair when it comes to things we eat?

Because Organic is a new fad...



Well that is a bit insulting and empty.

But it's true.



Are you not aware of terminator seeds and how their product effects plants in adjacent fields?

Yes but if we label GMO foods then those foods too would be labeled as GMO, chances are your "organic" foods would actually not meet the standards of "non-GMO" if tested and would therefore be labeled.



So in concluding, it is my opinion that the degree of uncertainty itself is enough to warrant concern and further testing by independent researchers.

There has been so much testing of these plants but the problem is there have not been enough tests to match the hype of the anti-gmo robots.



Do you think profits ever come before people?

But that works both ways, like I said earlier. Rotenone was a dangerous pesticide before Organic food was the newest coolest hippest thing, since there was so much money it is Rotenone was magically safe to use again.
edit on 15-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


It's useless. He just makes crap up and misrepresents the information.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


It's useless. He just makes crap up and misrepresents the information.


Im still waiting for where i said that GMO was the same as selective breeding. Post the quote, do it now or admitt that you are the one making stuff up
edit on 15-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 

Maybe we can meet in the middle and just say the uncertainty of this technology, it's prolific taking over of the agriculture industry,and the public's concerns are enough to give pause to it's complete acceptance and implementation.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


It's useless. He just makes crap up and misrepresents the information.


Im still waiting for where i said that GMO was the same as selective breeding. Post the quote, do it now or admitt that you are the one making stuff up
edit on 15-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)


Tell you what, I'll do so when you actually address my points about your nonsensical representation of the concerns with Bt engineered crops.

deal?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


It's useless. He just makes crap up and misrepresents the information.


Im still waiting for where i said that GMO was the same as selective breeding. Post the quote, do it now or admitt that you are the one making stuff up
edit on 15-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)


Tell you what, I'll do so when you actually address my points about your nonsensical representation of the concerns with Bt engineered crops.

deal?


Exactly, you ignore posts and make stuff up to argue with. When you get called on it you just try to dodge the issue and continue to ignore posts that don't fit in with the stuff you made up.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 




When you can address the FIRST response to you, we will move on to the second, third and fourth.

First, you claims about Bt.







new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum