Opposing Genetic Engineering May Be Immoral

reply to post by charles1952


Sorry I ended up watching a film...

There may be some confusion here. The royalty-free access was for some of the technology used in making the rice, not the rice itself. Once they had permission to use some of the technology required to make the rice, they made a new patent for the process and product, which was given away completely. You see the confusion?

Well I don't see that in the quote you provided... It says this...

Syngenta arranged royalty-free access to the patents and intellectual property, held by several biotechnology companies, for a number of key technologies used in Golden Rice. This allows IRRI and others to develop Golden Rice on a not-for-profit basis.

It seems like there is a collaboration of several different patents and different technologies and intellectual property, which is then loaned out on a royalty free basis... Syngenta arranged the collaboration. It goes onto say that several firms can then use them to make golden rice on a "not-for-profit basis"... So the people doing it are a charity? Hmmmm

Any way I don't see anything that alludes to anything being given away... So could you quote the part that says it has?

Well, where do you want the millions of dollars to come from? Anything they give money to is bad for the world? They've helped in producing something beneficial, preventing blindness and death. It's fully researched and governments can study it and approve it or not, however they see fit. How do the Gates, or anyone else donating money, make this evil?

It doesn't, but I know that the gates are big in eugenics and population control. Bill Gates has done speeches on the matter... here...



Okay so you're a smart guy so maybe you can tell me how saving lives makes the population growth go down? What the hell does bill gates have to do with population control anyway? Also note when he says that we need to bring co2 down to ZERO, is the guy just insane or what? We breath out co2!

Let me also say that jimmy savile did a lot of work for charity. He was ALWAYS running some charity event or other. He opened hospitals and all sorts... Turns out he was a raving pedophile... Basically the charity and good works was a very nice cover for him! Hell he even got his own room in a hospital...

Actually I disagree. Forgive my bluntness, but even MUCH, MUCH, more information will not convince you. You won't accept anything coming from any government or official source. But you are convinced by one guy who is hiding his data?

Ha, well that may well be true, but I would still like to know more... Do you know? Please point out where I said I support his work? I believe I said that "I do not know"... I also said he was wrong to withhold information. I just want things to be consistent...

Again you point out that he is hiding data but neglect that your source is too... To be they are as bad as each other... So...

Please remember that there are two groups of studies involved. The European Union's saying the corn is safe, which is being accused of hiding data by a scientist who is being criticized by that group.

Yup, I get that... So are you saying that they are not hiding data?

There is also Seralini's study which is being condemned by seven different bodies as not meeting scientific standards.

Yes for which I don't even know who they are... I have no doubt though that the big boys club will stick together... Please watch "cancer is a serious business" and watch how it works... He had patents stolen and all sorts... If you haven't watched it I highly recommend it, it is a fascinating tale... I would love your thoughts on it...

In the face of that I see no reason to accept Seralini's study. If there is a claim that the EU's study is false, then that should be explored, but reason demands that Seralini's be tossed, at least as it is.

I have no problem with tossing seralini's work out the window, but if the eu has also hidden data then that needs throwing out too... To be honest my arguments do not hinge on his work anyway... I've never even supported it...

Does rice cross-pollinate? Does it spread out to new lands detroying other vegetation? And if it replaces all rice in the world, you end up with rice with more Vitamin A then there is normally. A problem?

I don't know, does it? I shouldn't see why not... When did I say anything about destroying other vegetation? Oh yes I have a big problem, you see I like to choose NOT to eat GMO foods as much as possible... It is my personal choice. I can also get vitamin A from other sources... Also I wouldn't want the worlds rice supply in the hands of a few (I know you say it isn't but I have yet to see evidence of it)...

reply to post by charles1952

If you were to ban Golden Rice, wouldn't you still have the problem of not being able to choose GE or natural?

Ha, yes... But on this one I will side with nature, it has got us this far so... It is like saying, would you like grandma to make you a meal, she has had 60 years of experience cooking everyday of her life, or would you like the new born baby down the street to do it for you.. Who would you rather feed you? (i know the analogy was only for a little fun)...

I mean why should someone be able to come around and force change in the food supply onto people? I am quite happy with the way it is, lol... As are billions of others...

Do you not see how it could be a power grab? What more power can you have? If you control the food you control who lives and who dies... I don't want that, ever! Of course though they will justify it with protecting people. It is the same old double speak...

Obviously as I said this is a mighty complex issue and it has many layers...

Oh another thing is just look at the labeling issues... They have fought HARD to keep gmo off the labels! This just shows to me that they have something to hide... If gmo was so good and the rice contained more vitamin A etc then why wouldn't they promote that? Why hide it? Hiding stuff is bad remember...

reply to post by charles1952

Excellent work, would you be surprised if I said I agree with you?

No, I am a very agreeable chap!

I'm a big fan of getting government out of things any time we can. I'd like to see it happen here, but where do we go for unbiased testing of foods, seeds, and the like? Who has the equipment and money to do it? I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but it may be a case of finding a corrupt institution that can be most easily checked on and held up to public scrutiny.

Excellent... Where do we go, hmmm, entrepreneurs will solve this issue... I believe it will be not too different from toady whereas we will have consumer pressure groups... After all most things that are found out are not discovered by governments but rather by whistleblowers and the like... Maybe there will even be a body that earns money for providing information about companies, there already are such bodies in the private sector... There are also semi charitable or consumer groups you can go to. For instance for 10 pounds I can have any liquid I like analyzed for sodium flouride... There is no law forcing companies to display it on food or beverages, so very cheaply I can find out...

If you don't care about it then don't pay...

But hey I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of how a stateless society would work, but there are always solutions and if we know anything it is, if there is a demand there will be a supply... Oh and I may as well just throw in citizen journalists, they have uncovered some pretty shocking stuff in the past. As have television companies with undercover reporters and the like. With the internet today information spreads super fast.

Good chatting to you anyway fella but now I must sleep.

reply to post by mee30

Dear mee30,

Thanks for a great pair of posts (Ooops, guess it's three posts), and for your interest. I hope I don't short change you. On the question of cross-pollination, here's the statement from IRRI:

Golden Rice will only be released to farmers for cultivation after national regulators have determined that it is safe for the environment, in part based on studies that assess the potential impact of Golden Rice on biodiversity.

Based on six years of study so far, the genetic trait that produces beta carotene in the rice grain does not appear to make Golden Rice plants stronger than other rice varieties. Therefore Golden Rice is unlikely to harm biodiversity by becoming a weed.

Golden Rice is also unlikely to impact biodiversity by endangering wild rice through cross-pollination (outcrossing, or gene flow) for reasons that apply to all cultivated rice.
• Rice is typically self-pollinated and the frequency of cross-pollination is low.
• Cross-pollination in rice is rare if plants are separated by a short distance of a few feet or meters.
• Cross-pollination is uncommon unless the rice plants are flowering at the same time.
• This means that wild rice species won't usually cross-pollinate naturally with cultivated rice unless they are growing close together and flower at the same time.
• Compatible wild rice species may not be found growing close to cultivated rice varieties. For example, only one compatible wild rice species has been reported in the Philippines, in a single location.
More important, should cross-pollination with wild rice occur, Golden Rice is unlikely to endanger diversity in wild rice because the genetic trait would not make the plants stronger or weaker than others.

www.irri.org...

But, hey, cut me a litttle slack, I'd never heard of Golden Rice before this afternoon. May I suggest that you follow that link to their FAQ page, so that I can stop cutting and pasting?

Again you point out that he is hiding data but neglect that your source is too... To be they are as bad as each other... So...

Ah, that hurts. I made a special point of including it in the clip I posted, and I mentioned it in another post. Play fair.

I have no problem with tossing seralini's work out the window, but if the eu has also hidden data then that needs throwing out too... To be honest my arguments do not hinge on his work anyway... I've never even supported it...

There have been threads and posts taking the position that Seralini had proved the corn was cancer causing. I was addressing, in my OP, a larger audience.

Oh yes I have a big problem, you see I like to choose NOT to eat GMO foods as much as possible... It is my personal choice. I can also get vitamin A from other sources... Also I wouldn't want the worlds rice supply in the hands of a few (I know you say it isn't but I have yet to see evidence of it)...

This isn't really about the US, Canada, UK, or Europe. This is about the millions who have no choice in their food, they eat what is there. They can't get Vitamin A capsules at the corner pharmacy, there isn't one. (There probably isn't even a corner. Lots of places don't have roads.)

Anyway, I hope you rest well. Perhaps tomorrow?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Ooops, guess it's three posts

Yeah sorry for the spam but I ran out of space for what I wanted to say..

Golden Rice will only be released to farmers for cultivation after national regulators have determined that it is safe for the environment, in part based on studies that assess the potential impact of Golden Rice on biodiversity.

I mean of course they are going to say things like this! They aren't exactly going to say "well we don't really give a damn as long as we control the food in the end", are they? But you need to read between the lines...

Based on six years of study so far, the genetic trait that produces beta carotene in the rice grain does not appear to make Golden Rice plants stronger than other rice varieties. Therefore Golden Rice is unlikely to harm biodiversity by becoming a weed.

Firstly when dealing with the eco sytstem and the food supply do you really think 6 years is enough? Some medicines take much longer than that... Secondly, notice the rather vague wording such as "does not appear" and "unlikely"...

Oh, that's super then, crack on! I'm filled with confidence...

As for the rest, again it is all vague with "won't usually" and "unlikely" all over the place... Btw would bees not have a hand in pollinating rice?

But, hey, cut me a litttle slack, I'd never heard of Golden Rice before this afternoon. May I suggest that you follow that link to their FAQ page, so that I can stop cutting and pasting?

Well you did raise the product so..... But sure, I will be doing a little digging on golden rice and IRRI...

Ah, that hurts. I made a special point of including it in the clip I posted, and I mentioned it in another post. Play fair.

You didn't say it as a negative, you merely said that the accusations came from someone that is under scrutiny... Which to me is kinda making excuses for them...

There have been threads and posts taking the position that Seralini had proved the corn was cancer causing. I was addressing, in my OP, a larger audience.

Indeed, but since then you have been talking to me, and that is what I am addressing, the posts aimed towards me...

This isn't really about the US, Canada, UK, or Europe. This is about the millions who have no choice in their food, they eat what is there. They can't get Vitamin A capsules at the corner pharmacy, there isn't one. (There probably isn't even a corner. Lots of places don't have roads.)

I have never said that people going without food isn't a problem, but it is a problem that can be solved WITHOUT genetically modifying anything... That is my point... Also you kind of insinuate that the choice is rice or pills from the corner shop... Below I have provided a link for the top ten sources for vitimin A in foods, rice isn't on it...

And if we actually paid third world countries fairly for their products then we wouldn't have these problems to begin with.

Btw since golden rice has been introduced do you have any figures for health benefits? Like how much has it reduced the diseases you mentioned before?

sources for vitimin A

On another note...

What? No mention of the beloved bill gates and his population control agenda? I was REALLY interested on hearing your thoughts on that one... No mention of why he said co2 needs to come down to ZERO? He even made a joke that the population could have to come down to ZERO... That was hilarious, don't you think? (please note I am being very sarcastic here)

Okay, well I'm off to check out IRRI to see what I can find.

reply to post by charles1952


Okay so I'm having a little poke around and I found out a few things which get my alarm bells ringing! See this little article on the IRRI website...

For the want of rice

So from the article notice the section on LAND GRABS... And how they talk about western countries wanting to continue THEIR supply of rice... They are apparently not opposed to this but go on to say that it should be regulated... But it's okay because then the locals can work for some big corp and "get paid (relatively) well for their efforts."

Well isn't that nice of them...

See the locals can't afford nice tools and such, so the big corps move in to save the day! Buy up the land and allow the peasants to work the land... Can anyone say KACHING??

Oh and also one of the investors is the world bank... Yeah, they are defo for the people, again...

What about kellogs and mars? The batians of healthy living... Don't monsanto own kellogs?

Just having bill gates the eugenicist on the team has me VERY skeptical of their REAL intentions...

Edit:

Here check out this link too...

farm land grab

Seems this is becoming a major problem!

Do you really think it is for the poor old africans? I think not...


Just saw this on the front page here on ATS I think it adds to the discussion and proves my point, even if SOME biotech companies are not doing it, some ARE... This is a dangerous route we are going down, don't you think?

GMO giant (DuPont) hires retired cops to hunt down farmers

Scary stuff!

reply to post by mee30

Dear mee30,

I suppose I'll just have to work through your posts, one at a time. But I'm curious, do you think the Golden Rice project should be shut down? And what would be your main reason, or two?

Ha, yes... But on this one I will side with nature, it has got us this far so...

If I were a parent in an impoverished country, only able to feed my children rice, what could I say if I were offered a choice between two bowls, one ordinary rice, and the other, rice which would increase my child's chance of keeping her vision and reducing diseases? I would throw "nature's rice" aside, and so would any parent.

I mean why should someone be able to come around and force change in the food supply onto people? I am quite happy with the way it is, lol... As are billions of others...

"Force?" What force? Governments have to approve it, farmers have to want to buy it, people have to want to eat it. Because of it's color, every grain of Golden Rice is labelled as genetically engineered. Did you think 100% of the rice growers would automatically, and instantaneously switch to Golden Rice?

Do you not see how it could be a power grab? What more power can you have? If you control the food you control who lives and who dies... I don't want that, ever! Of course though they will justify it with protecting people. It is the same old double speak...

What controlling the food are you talking about? If people don't want to plant Golden Rice, they don't have to. They can plant regular rice, or anything else.

Oh another thing is just look at the labeling issues... They have fought HARD to keep gmo off the labels! This just shows to me that they have something to hide... If gmo was so good and the rice contained more vitamin A etc then why wouldn't they promote that? Why hide it? Hiding stuff is bad remember...

In the case of Golden Rice, as I said, each grain is labelled. They are promoting it. The vitamin A enrichment was their original goal and purpose. That's why people are interested in it. If they didn't promote the vitamin A, it would be just another variety of rice, ho-hum.

Now if you're talking about the issue in California, remember Alar and apples. Intentionally false reports were made by environmental groups claiming Alar was dangerous. Of course, it wasn't, but people were frightened and destroyed many apple orchards by refusing to eat apples.

Now, from the view of genetic engineering companies, look at those last two sentences, but replace apples and Alar with GMO. It's happened once (at least), why shouldn't it happen again?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by mee30

Dear mee30,

I'm getting pretty wobbly, but I still have strength for another pile of objections.

Golden Rice will only be released to farmers for cultivation after national regulators have determined that it is safe for the environment, in part based on studies that assess the potential impact of Golden Rice on biodiversity

I mean of course they are going to say things like this! They aren't exactly going to say "well we don't really give a damn as long as we control the food in the end", are they? But you need to read between the lines...

That's not your strongest argument, or, rather, it's too strong. It kills everything. What environmental group is going to say, "well, this GE product looks Ok, maybe the others are as well?" It seems that this issue would only be honest if IRRI said Golden Rice was dangerous, and environmental groups said it must be planted to save the children.

Besides, it's each individual nation that decides whether it's acceptable, not IRRI. Those sources, combined, seem more reliable than groups with a history of making false accusations to further their own goals.

Based on six years of study so far, the genetic trait that produces beta carotene in the rice grain does not appear to make Golden Rice plants stronger than other rice varieties. Therefore Golden Rice is unlikely to harm biodiversity by becoming a weed.

Firstly when dealing with the eco sytstem and the food supply do you really think 6 years is enough? Some medicines take much longer than that... Secondly, notice the rather vague wording such as "does not appear" and "unlikely"...

Medicines may take longer than six years to develop and test, produce and market, but all they're saying is that after six years of growing and testing the stuff, it isn't changing into a "super weed." I think that very well may be enough.

As for the rest, again it is all vague with "won't usually" and "unlikely" all over the place... Btw would bees not have a hand in pollinating rice?

Any life science is filled with words like that. Medicine never claims a guaranteed 100% cure for anything, for example.

I have never said that people going without food isn't a problem, but it is a problem that can be solved WITHOUT genetically modifying anything... That is my point... Also you kind of insinuate that the choice is rice or pills from the corner shop... Below I have provided a link for the top ten sources for vitimin A in foods, rice isn't on it...

Have we misunderstood each other as completely as this? Are you just playing? This has never been about the amount of food people have. And, of course, rice isn't in the top ten foods for vitamin A, that's the whole point. Billions of people have rice as the staple of their diets. Normal rice doesn't have much vitamin A or other micronutrients. The lack of vitamin A in their diets causes excessive blindness, and other diseases. Half a million children go blind each year. IRRI wanted to find a way to get more vitamin A into people who mainly eat rice. Golden Rice does that.

Btw since golden rice has been introduced do you have any figures for health benefits? Like how much has it reduced the diseases you mentioned before?

I don't have numbers because I haven't gone looking for them. From my second linked source

To test the Golden Rice, in 2008, researchers from Zehjiang Academy of Medical Sciences, in cooperation with Tufts University, undertook clinical trials in children. These researchers had received approval from the appropriate ethics and institutional-review boards of the respective institutions. As reported in their published paper on the clinical trials, children who ate the Golden Rice had higher levels of vitamin A than if they had consumed traditional rice or other food sources of the vitamin.

What? No mention of the beloved bill gates and his population control agenda? I was REALLY interested on hearing your thoughts on that one... No mention of why he said co2 needs to come down to ZERO? He even made a joke that the population could have to come down to ZERO... That was hilarious, don't you think? (please note I am being very sarcastic here)

The reasons I haven't spoken about Bill Gates are three-fold: I don't know much about it, any enforced plans to reduce the population are abhorrent, and I didn't want to go into another topic. Maybe in another thread.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thanks Charles for the ...acknowledgment. [Compliment or challenge?] Anyway, the thing about Frankenwheat, Frankencorn and other Frankenfoods is that the genetic modifications do not stop in the lab. Our world is designed so that everything keeps adapting, changing, mutating, evolving. And while our handlers might know what it is they created and released, they do NOT know what "it" will become in the wild...

There's more of course, but that's it for now.

reply to post by soficrow

Dear soficrow,

Hello! I'm really happy to see you. Of course, it was a compliment, you're unique on ATS and very valuable.

One of the things I was hoping to find out from you is whether you think Genetic Engineering (or Modification, I don't know which term is preferred) has any acceptable role at all? Is it too dangerous to allow any experimentation and use, or are there some situations in which the benefits are large and the risks can be sufficiently controlled?

The articles I ran across made me think that some exaggerate the risks of such modification, and do it intentionally. At the same time, the benefits don't appear to get a lot of mention.

Is there some acceptable way to use this technology?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Dear Charles - I do so enjoy speaking with you. Unfortunately, I'm a bit out-of-sorts and not up to much right now. But off the top of my head, we've already opened Pandora's Box - I doubt we can hang on, never mind control the beast.

One thing to think about: just as animals around the globe are sick and threatened with extinction due to inescapable contaminations - humans are similarly suffering a Chronic Disease Pandemic - and so too are plants under attack, and dying from the multitudinous assaults. As we rely on animals and plants for our own food - could it be that GM and GE represent our "leaders" best attempts to stay ahead of the extinction game, and rescue something from the ashes already falling?

Sorry to be such a downer. I really do have hope, and great faith in the future. I just think the good stuff will happen in spite of what we do, not because of it.

Take care, sofi

If anybody is reading along, I've found a new article about a possible mosquito release in Florida.

Hundreds of thousands of genetically modified mosquitoes are awaiting federal approval for release into the Florida Keys as part of an experiment aimed at reducing the risk of dengue fever.

Officials are targeting the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes because they can spread dengue fever, a disease health officials thought had been eradicated in the U.S. until 93 cases originated in the Keys in 2009 and 2010.

'The science of it, I think, looks fine. It's straight from setting up experiments and collecting data,' said Michael Doyle, pointing to research Oxitec has had published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He inherited the project when he took the lead at the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District in mid-2011.

Real estate agent Mila de Mier has collected more than 117,700 signatures on a petition she posted on Change.org against the trial. Most come from outside the Keys, which de Mier says shows that tourists don't support the mosquito control district.

Phil Lounibos of the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory also said it would take repeated releases of modified mosquitoes for the program to work, and the public outcry against genetically modified organisms, even when it's irrational, may be insurmountable.

Mosquito release From reading the article, I get the feeling (It's no more than that.) that this release will be delayed quite some time and may never happen. It also seemed to indicate they don't really have much of a solution for it.

Things are always changing.

In order to learn new things we have to take risks. We have to explore.

We can't stay in the cave and do what we're familiar with for too long.

Figuring out how long we can stay in the cave is important.

Some are driven to live their lives in the cave and others want to scour new frontiers.

Everything eventually dies and/or passes away. It's just the way of things.

Sooner or later, humans as they're today will be gone forever. The DNA and culture changes.

Even our nature might change. We might start becoming partly synthetic, who knows? If computers can be smart we'll inevitably combine with them to have extrahuman intelligence.

I don't think anybody can say what will happen or what precisely will change.

Species live on average for 2 million years. The human species is about 2 million years old.

The clock is ticking. Everytime it ticks, uncountable things change.

Change change Change. Sorry for repeating this word. Only constant is change. We can battle to stop it, but it wins because it can't give up. It doesn't live like we do. It can't die.

Here's a thought: Maybe we die to preserve ourselves and not change? If we lived forever we''d have to change and what's the point of having a single name if you're always changing? Even in the 77 year lifespan of hte average american there's substantial change. Perhaps we can only tolerate so much of it. But I guess it's a joke to say we die intentionally in protest to change.

People of every (recent?) era probably go through this. We're one section of a long line of people. It's a trial. We're exposed to change and we recoil either in fear or disgust or fascination or some other way. History is not just a story, it's a taste of our own future. We will confront it as they did.

But the future I think will always be cloudy. It'll always be hidden by unseen variables.

reply to post by jonnywhite

Species live on average for 2 million years.

Hmmm.

...A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance,[3] although some species, called living fossils, survive virtually unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Most extinctions have occurred naturally, prior to Homo sapiens walking on Earth: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.[3][4]

Mass extinctions are relatively rare events; however, isolated extinctions are quite common. Only recently have extinctions been recorded and scientists have become alarmed at the high rates of recent extinctions.[5] Most species that become extinct are never scientifically documented. Some scientists estimate that up to half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100.[6]

Also note, "The relationship between animals and their ecological niches has been firmly established."

And a few more basics:

SPECIES EXTINCTION

Modern science has shown that nature is not always “red in tooth and claw”, but rather that cooperation is often the norm. Human beings often act as if we are in direct competition with every other form of life, when in truth our very survival depends on a myriad of species from simple bacteria to complex mammals.

Today, human activities are causing a massive extinction of species, the full implications of which are barely understood. Rising ocean temperatures reduce the ability of plankton to reproduce, thereby undermining the entire oceanic ecosystem. Commercial fishing’s increasing size and scope threaten to empty of the ocean of fish within several decades.

Modern agricultural practices strip the Earth of its thin layer of topsoil through water and wind erosion, destroying this precious micro ecosystem that takes centuries to form and supports all life on land. Furthermore, bee populations are plummeting as a result of mite infestations and a mysterious problem called Colony Collapse Disorder. Over 70% of our food is pollinated by bees; if bee populations fall too far, our food supplies will be seriously threatened. . .

reply to post by charles1952

...One of the things I was hoping to find out from you is whether you think Genetic Engineering (or Modification, I don't know which term is preferred) has any acceptable role at all? Is it too dangerous to allow any experimentation and use, or are there some situations in which the benefits are large and the risks can be sufficiently controlled?

Maybe the wrong questions, or asked too late. Genetic modification and engineering, biotechnology and all the related sciences have "progressed" under the cloak of confidentiality agreements protected by intellectual property rights laws to benefit the bottom line, not humanity as a whole or the world at large.

As motive counts and goals do define directions, a better question might be, "Can we change direction and work for the good of the whole, not the corporate right to profit or the elites' right to seek immortality?" And another question seems equally pertinent, "Is there any point in trying to put the brakes on and pull a u-turn now?" Given that the biological basis of life on this planet already has been altered.

I hate genetic engineering! That's one of the main reason's why we get so many diseases nowadays. At the same time, government opposes positive chemical engineering because they know that chemical engineering is much safer, and can increase cognition, dexterity, energy, and improve digestion. Government pushes bad chemicals in the pharmacy and food and water. When a new chemical is made that is too effective with too few side effects, the government blocks it.

reply to post by ShadowGhost

Dear ShadowGhost,

Hi, welcome.

Just to ensure that I understand you, your position is that all genetic engineering is bad, some chemical engineering is bad, and the government opposes good chemical engineering?

By chemical engineering, are you talking about pharmaceuticals? Does that kind of engineering mean the mixing of chemicals to get new substances?

May I take it that your position is roughly the same as soficrow's, a couple of posts earlier? By the way, you should read soficrow's stuff. Some of her conclusions are difficult for me to accept, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't know genetic engineering or epidemology on ATS unless you read soficrow.

She may not be a goddess, but she is certainly a heroine.

With respect,
Charles1952

The ONLY reason there's a well funded campaign in America to STOP food from being labeled "Genetically Modified" is because DOD's Trust Funds are heavily invested in Genetically Modified Crops/Food.

They couldn't tax the populace anymore to fund the Empire's military....so to make the revenue they're invested in Genetically Modified Crops to get the revenue....killing off the taxpayers.

It's OK.....Obama's given +8 million foreigners new US citizenship the last couple of years.....There will ALWAYS be new suckers to bring in to keep it all going.

Great topic!

Years ago I was working for Syngenta and one of the projects I was working on involved biopharming.
We were trying to replicate some of the pathways, which are in Vinca (periwinkle), into tobacco plants.
These pathways are involved in the Vinca plants natural production of the Vinca alkaloids (vincristine and vinblastine) which are used in leukemia treatments.

By engineering these pathways into tobacco plants (biopharming) this could make the production of the alkaloids cheaper and easier to produce thus lowering the cost of these treatments. From what I remember, the Vinca alkaloids were pretty effective at treating certain types of leukemia in children.

These days I'm pretty much anti-gmo, but considering the above, I can see some positives, imagine tobacco going from a reputation as an addictive poison which kills people to a gmo which saves lives?

What a strange world we live in.

Btw, most of the Vinca plants used for extraction of the alkaloids were/are grown in Madagascar, and I think that was causing some environmental issues, hence the need for another way to make these drugs.