It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Non-Browning Apple Genetically Modified To Stay Crisp

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by DavidWillts
 




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


I did, you ignored it and made up another post to argue with




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 



Nope. You ignored my post pointing out that you misrepresented the argument against BT engineered corn. You havent the interest or capability to uphold your claims, because they are nonsense. Which is why you have no sources to uphold your claims. None. Just shuckin and jivin.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
you ignored it...



Originally posted by DavidWillts

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 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


LOL. That in no way supports your claims regarding the concern farmers have with genetically engineered Bt crops.

See, you claimed that there is no difference between BT engineered crops and physical and limited application of actual Bt to crops.

You just posted a link to a study that asks the question: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins?

Clearly you just randomly grabbed the first Bt related study you could find without understanding it, because it in NO WAY supports your claim, shown here:




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.


Because Farmers arent opposed to Bt. They are opposed to Bt being ENGINEERED INTO CROPS. The difference is incredibly significant. Your basically saying 'if someone likes to drink soda, then why shoud they oppose genetically engineering cocacola into all the plants we eat?'

It's sheer nonsense.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 





Clearly you just randomly grabbed the first Bt related study you could find without understanding it, because it in NO WAY supports your claim, shown here:

That was a study you posted... remember?


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)


You are obviously too slow to have this type of discussion with, if you would like to continue you have my permission to make up anything else and claim I posted it and argue with that.
edit on 15-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Cut your apples and then submerge them in acidulated water until you are ready to eat them. Add ice to the water to keep them crisp.
edit on 15-7-2012 by Texan123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Wow. Just wow. You havent defended a single one of your claims. Organic farmers have no problem with Bt, which is your claim. The concern is with Bt genetically engineered into plants. To pretend there is no difference is laughable.

But it;s noteworthy how you could gather so many stars on a thread no one is reading. Call in your army?

Now, please, for the tenth time, show me where organic farmers have had a concern with the application of Bt, and not the genetic engineering of it?
edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts




You are obviously too slow to have this type of discussion with, if you would like to continue you have my permission to make up anything else and claim I posted it and argue with that.
edit on 15-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)


You are obviously too disingenuous to uphold your argument, which is why you constantly misrepresent the debate.

I'll repeat:


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.

You have not disproven that, but rather have posted unrelated data, and moved the goal posts. Youre a joke.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Can we please use better terminology that actually makes sense?

Just FYI, all farming is "organic", as all known organisms are organic in nature.

Perhaps we could call them, genetically modified and non-modified.
Because even a modified creature/plant is organic, technically.

I didn't care so much until the 50millionth time we used it, now I'm starting to want it to change.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I will gladly engage mr willits in a debate in the debate forum regarding the nature of the debate around Bt. Offer is standing.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by DavidWillts




You are obviously too slow to have this type of discussion with, if you would like to continue you have my permission to make up anything else and claim I posted it and argue with that.
edit on 15-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)


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.

The irony about this whole thing is that the article YOU linked to actually goes over exactly what we are talking about here. You should really read the things you link to and the related articles.


www.enveurope.com...
We outline important underlying reasons that fuel the decades-long controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins expressed in genetically modified plants on beneficial, nontarget organisms. Inconsistent evaluation standards and asymmetrical levels of scrutiny applied to studies reporting significant adverse effects compared to those finding no adverse effects are described using the examples of the green lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea) and the two-spotted lady beetle (Adalia bipunctata).





You have not disproven that, but rather have posted unrelated data, and moved the goal posts. Youre a joke.


How have i moved the goal posts? And where did I say GMO was the same as selective breeding? And PMing me and accusing me of contacting "my shills" just makes you look foolish and paranoid.
edit on 15-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Can we please use better terminology that actually makes sense?

Just FYI, all farming is "organic"


That is not true, "organic" farming has very specific standards that must be met in order to be called organic. It is not a matter of the plant just being non-GMO.
standards

But even with an "organic" label the food still may not be organic


www.helpguide.org...
When you’re shopping for organic foods in the U.S., look for the “USDA Organic” seal. Only foods that are 95 to 100 percent organic can use the USDA Organic label.

100% Organic – Foods that are completely organic or made with 100% organic ingredients may display the USDA seal.
Organic – Foods that contain at least 95% organic ingredients may display the USDA seal.
Made with organic ingredients – Foods that contain at least 70% organic ingredients will not display the USDA seal but may list specific organic ingredients on the front of the package.
Contains organic ingredients – Foods that contain less than 70% organic ingredients will not display the USDA seal but may list specific organic ingredients on the information panel of the package.


So when GMOs have to get labeled many of the the foods that have just the organic label on them will also have the GMO sticker on them.
edit on 15-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Please, David, by all means, point out the parts of that study that uphold your claims that organic farmers are opposed to Bt applications.

You have spent 4 pages talking circles around it.

Clearly you dont grasp the difference between how a farmer manually applies Bt to a plant and the way Monsanto has genetically engineered entire crops to actually hold it in their DNA.

You pointed to a study I posted, and claimed it upheld your claim.

So, point out that part.
edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Please, David, by all means, point out the parts of that study that uphold your claims that organic farmers are opposed to Bt applications.


I have never said that...once again you are making things up.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Please, David, by all means, point out the parts of that study that uphold your claims that organic farmers are opposed to Bt applications.


I have never said that...once again you are making things up.


Okay, if you cat even defend your claim here, i'll leave you be:


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.


You dont understand the nature of OG farmers concern with Montantos use of Bt.

My challenge to debate you in the debate forum on this topic stands. Let me know when you want to do so.
edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Please, David, by all means, point out the parts of that study that uphold your claims that organic farmers are opposed to Bt applications.


I have never said that...once again you are making things up.


Okay, if you cat even defend your claim here, i'll leave you be:


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.


You dont understand the nature of OG farmers concern with Montantos use of Bt.

My challenge to debate you in the debate forum on this topic stands. Let me know when you want to do so.
edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)


See the difference? In that post i was saying when it comes to monsanto's BT crops BT is horrible and dangerous but when it comes to organic farming Bt is safe to spray all over the crops. Nowhere did I say that


organic farmers are opposed to Bt applications.

You made that up to suit your argument.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
damn shills.

lemon juice prevents browning, and tastes great. try it sometime.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


My being a mod does not remove my opinions from my head Sir. I suggest you remember that. I made no call for violence, I simply stated that I think, personally people who create GMO foods like Monsanto, should die in fires.

It's not ignorant to state that GMO foods are unhealthy, it's common sense. We aren't suppose to consume things that we have modified at the molecular and genetic level. There is TONS of research to support this idea in most GMO crops, especially does that have been heavily grown.

A growing list of nations have banned GMO foods because of this research. So it is VERY true, that the more research is done, the worse GMO foods look for us and our environment.

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Outofcontrol
 


Actually insanity is eating something that humans genetically modified, (without knowing the reprocussions longer term mind you) without actually testing and wondering how does this benefit us?

Do we really need an apple that stays crips all the time?

The research clearly shows correlations between GMO crops and increase in a variety of health problems as well as environment problems.

I won't argue facts.

As for your medieval comment, they didn't have science to show them that something was bad. I do.

~Tenth

edit on 7/16/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




I think, personally people who create GMO foods like Monsanto, should die in fires.

No violence at all, you are a sad person...
So i can change my sig to "I think the families of ATS mods and admins should die in fires"? That would be okay? or is it just the family of members that we can write this stuff about?



It's not ignorant to state that GMO foods are unhealthy, it's common sense. We aren't suppose to consume things that we have modified at the molecular and genetic level. There is TONS of research to support this idea in most GMO crops

Is this research in la la land? Care to post said research or admit that it is rhetoric?
edit on 16-7-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join