- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I like applying modern science to improve yield and enhance people's lives. Is it possible that a product can be created by a company for it's own self interest but is harmful to people? I think so. But, I could be wrong.
These arguments remind me of an old Monty Python skit about "crunchy frogs". Ever seen it? A candy shop sells "crunchy frogs"...a chocolate covered frog. But, they leave the bones in the frog to make it crunchy. What if we discovered that spraying crops with leaded gasoline kept the crickets away? Would that be ok? It would be in the gasoline producer's best interest. It would maximize yield... It's not even Friday yet and I'm already getting weird.
My point is that we can talk about maximizing yield, a company's best self interest...etc. But, too often we fail to really evaluate if something is, indeed, safe. The consumption of glyphosates, based on what I have seen, may not actually be safe. That is a material fact here. I hope to see, firsthand, one or more studies showing that is is safe. I'm certainly open to that info.
Please cite your sources. I used to work for a company that relied on GMO sugar beets for their living. In just the last few years some GMO fear-mongers in California brought a lawsuit against the use of these GMO sugar beets. They couldn't produce one shred of evidence on ANY strain in production (and they looked into corn, soybeans, and others - not just sugar beets) for more than 20 years that showed ANY adverse effects - in either humans or lab animals.
Don't believe the GMO fear-mongering. It's the same panic that is being inflicted on Europe, who currently bans imports of GMO foods - again despite having no evidence.
BTW - you can get cancer in lab rats from forcing them to eat 100x a normal amount of just about anything...
"Plastics," said Gordon. "They can be shredded and remolded. Could always use more."
Alex shook his head. "Plastics would be too bulky to lift in useful quantities. We need things that are small and valuable."
"Don't rule anything out, yet," said Sherrine. "We're brainstorming."
"Too bad you can't grow plastic from seeds," said Doe. "Like you can plants."
"But you can!" Mike said suddenly.
"What?"
"Well, not quite; but . . . There was an experimental field-—in Iowa?-—where they grew plastic corn. Alcaligenes eutrophus is a bacterium that produces a brittle polymer. Eighty percent of its dry weight is a naturally grown plastic: PHB, poly-beta-hydroxybutyrate . . ."
"Contains only natural ingredients!" declared Steve with a grin.
"Researchers found they could coax the bug into producing a more flexible plastic by adding a few organic acids to the glucose 'soup.' They cloned the polymer producing enzymes-—oh, 1987 or so-—and spliced them into E. coli. Later, they spliced them into turnips, and finally corn. That was the bonanza. The mother lode of plastic. The corn grew plastic kernels. Think of it: plastic corn on the cob," he chuckled. "Shuck the cobs and you get pellets. Perfect for melting in a forming machine hopper."
Doc frowned. "And you plant some of the plastic seed corn and grow more? That doesn't sound right."
Mike shook his head. "No, that was the problem, plastic seeds don't germinate. So you'd still need the original bugs, but you can breed them in vats and harvest the polymers directly Not as efficient as the corn, but. . . They were this close to cracking the sterility problem when the National Scientific Research Advisory Board halted all testing."
"It sounds fantastic," said Alex. "Where can you find this bug?"
"A. eutrophus? In the hold of the Flying Dutchman. It's just a story that agents pass around. The test plot was abandoned when genetic engineering "was outlawed. Later, it was burned by a Green hit squad."
Doc grunted. "Hunh. Burning plastic corn? I’ll bet it released a toxic smoke cloud."
"Sure. But that was the fault of the scientists, not the arsonists. They burned one of the scientists, too." "
- Fallen Angels
http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/06717...
That's silly, they did it so that herbicides could be used more effectively - the glyphosate can now kill the weeds without killing the cash crop. Weeds steal valuable water and nutrients from the cash crop and may also outcompete for sunlight if the desired crop is short.
Whining about Roundup Ready is like whining about using fertilizer or even old-school GMO, selective breeding. Without modern improvements to crops and farming methods we'd need at least 10x the acreage to feed the same number of people. We'd have plants that were still highly susceptible to fungi and bacterial diseases. Plants have been modified, artificially or by selective breeding (which is still artificial) for many beneficial reasons - cold tolerance, drought tolerance, disease tolerance, shelf-life (supermarket corn tastes good these days when you used to have to eat it very fresh or it became starchy), flavor, size, appearance, etc.
Monsanto has made evil choices, like suing a farmer for stealing their genes because Monsanto planted their GMO corn next to his corn field, but their genetic work and their reasons for doing it are not inherently wrong.
Furthermore, isn't it in Monsanto's rational self-interest to make Roundup more usable by more farmers? Their work in the Roundup Ready area doesn't even benefit their sales of Roundup that much because glyphosate is made by many different companies now. I haven't bought Roundup brand herbicide in years. Of course it does fatten the bottom line in sales of the Roundup Ready seed.
The original gene modification of plants was more relational to cross breeding LIKE species. This is how various types of apples, cirtus, peas, etc. have come about. Some have done very well in creating tastier, heartier plants. Especially with apples; the crossing is quite easy as the various pollen is crossed between types, thanks to bees and other insects and birds. If you want specific types of apples, you have to grow them with specific other types of apples. Some are self pollinating and others need the right type to produce the type of apples. That is far far different "GMO" than what people are upset about.
I am not debunking your arguments here. DNA can deform with various environmental hazards and factors in general. BUT the fear is coming from the purposely altered, non-like genetic material.
On that note: There was a story the other day about the glowing cat... and what might happen if it was released into the wild... now, why would someone what to make a glowing cat, Besides because they can?? I like my cats the way they are! :)
"At times like these, when their fat little comforts are threatened, you may be sure that science is the first thing men will sacrifice."
Perhaps the best counter-argument is the organic apple. if you plant an apple seed, you have no idea what kind of apple will grow. All commercial apple varieties come from grafts. You plant the tree, and take the branch that has the apples you want. "Natural" apples were like what we call "crab apples" but as eaten and deposited along the Silk Road for 5000 years, they grew to become very popular.
Broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbages are cultivants of the same species... as noted: long before we knew what "genes" were.
"Biohacker Kay Aull’s father was found to have hemochromatosis: his body absorbs too much iron. It is a genetic defect. She carries the gene, also. Kay Aull verified this by building her own laboratory test in her kitchen for under $100." -- "Biopunks" here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...