- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- 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
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
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/...
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! :)
An example of how this works (albeit unfortunately not mine) is with a skin gun developed at Carnegie Mellon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjK...
overdose for prostate cancer, my dad had skin
grafts to close the wound which appeared at the
base of his spine. extreme pain, slow recovery
and tedious attending treatment was involved.
this science is super -- Go For It!!! -- j
It is not magic, but it is just becoming known to humans. The complexity of the signaling networks involved for engineering each type of tissue make it very difficult to accept that this evolved purely as a series of accidents. Evolution was certainly involved, but I find it very difficult to accept that there was no great mind involved at any point in the process - probably very long ago and perhaps only at "the beginning". There are just so many issues to get right that even the best in tissue engineering feel like 4 or 5 year olds trying to replicate what normally is done so well naturally.
who is, and the tissue type might well be
blood vessel wall -- for an aneurism repair,
say ... ? and then there's this other millionaire
who had bypass surgery, a close friend ... ?
you are on the front line -- and Thanks!!! -- j
He is really sharp.
is visiting, right now), and wonder about
the projected introduction to the world. -- j
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...
And yes, just like the old saccharine stories, rats got bladder cancer... from the equivalent of a human drinking many gallons of drinks containing it. Of course, drinking that much liquid will result in death anyway. But who's counting? Or thinking.
"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...
As an example, see what has been done at
Carnegie Mellon with burned skin regeneration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjK...
Modern wheat is triploid; wild wheat is monoploid or diploid. All wheat apparently originated from a cross species pollination of a grass and a grain. Cross species, maybe cross genus.
People do not understand the degree to which we have influenced our environment over millennia. Once folks stop screaming about GMO's and let golden rice be distributed in the third world, where it could remedy about 250,000 cases of blindness or death per year (mostly children), I will be glad to discuss scientific GMO testing and boundaries. Until then, let's just push for rationality and the cessation of 'first world death-patronization' for golden rice and its ilk.
Jan
(Incidentally, Monsanto voluntarily gave up its patents for golden rice distribution...and Greenpeace has blocked this for about 15 years. 15 x 250,000...do the math.)
As a man of science I find the whole story interesting. When I started learning about GMO I had zero concern. As I learned about how GMO is integrated into the farming systems I became very concerned. For starters GMO foods often lead to more exposure to glyphosates. That's worthy of discussion. A good friend of mine who recently graduated from my alma matter with a degree in agricultural engineering won't get near GMO, and is happy to explain why.
I find nothing in the principles of Objectivism that justifies wilful dissemblance.
"No person stays in this valley by faking reality in any manner whatever."
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.
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.
If you insert the word "rational" before "self interest", as I did, then the answer is "no." A company that sells a product that they know is unsafe is not being rational because the consequences will be negative. Exactly how negative is unknowable.
When do people consume glyphosate? This is a sincere question, generally glyphosate is not randomly sprayed or broadcast sprayed. A farmer would target the weeds even of only to maximize chemical use and thereby save money. In a corn field, for instance, the herbicide would be directed at the ground and should only come into contact with the base of the corn stalk, not the developing seed head.
There is also an absurd amount of disinformation on the web. Take, for instance, http://offthegridnews.com. An article there (Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Contains Dangerous Glyphosate) states, "Monsanto’s Roundup Ready contains glyphosate, which may be toxic to humans according to a new report." This article has many problems, starting with the most basic fact stated by the first sentence.
1) Roundup Ready does NOT contain glyphosate. It denotes plants that have an engineered resistance to glyphosate damage. From the Monsanto web site:
((Herbicides are key products used in conservation tillage (or no-till) farming, which leaves the soil undisturbed between cropping seasons – therefore being a major force in reducing soil lost to wind and water erosion.
[Roundup brand herbicides'] use on Roundup Ready® crops has allowed farmers to conserve fuel and decrease the overall amount of agricultural herbicides used.
Roundup Ready® Soybeans were commercialized in 1996, followed by alfalfa, corn, cotton, spring canola, sugarbeets and winter canola, which contain in-plant tolerance to Roundup® agricultural herbicides.))
2) "... according to a new report." Which report? Give the name so I can read it for myself to see what it really says.
3) The unnamed report supposedly says that glyphosate "may be toxic to humans." To what confidence level? Toxic in what quantity, by what metabolic pathway and how toxic? There are lots of things we consume that are toxic at higher than normal dosages - sometimes not much higher, though. It doesn't take very many Tylenol to do irreversible liver damage.
4) Not wanting to be liable for libel, they use the word "reportedly" a lot. There was reportedly a woman in Walmart that weighed 400 lbs and had 4 arms and a tail. That doesn't make it true.
5) They present simple, well known facts as though they're revelations of sinister secrets. "A review of the chemical by Natural News also states that the herbicide component “annihilates” the building blocks of life inside plants by ripping amino acids apart..." Wow! Sensational and inaccurate simultaneously! Monsanto's own web site states, "... the herbicide inhibits the activity of an enzyme called EPSP synthase, which in turn prevents the plant from manufacturing certain amino acids essential for plant growth and life."
Then they say, "When glyphosate is mixed with some other chemical ingredients, its harmful strength is reportedly increased. The Roundup Ready ingredient is often combined with foaming agents and surfactants which permit the mixture to penetrate plant leaves." The use of surfactants is absolutely true and which surfactant is very important to the effectiveness of the herbicide. Surfactants are compounds that lower the surface tension (or interfacial tension) between two liquids or between a liquid and a solid. Soap is the most common surfactant that people would be familiar with. Without surfactants you wouldn't be able to put oils into suspension with water to wash them away. No more clean hands, clothes, floors, dishes, etc.
Next they hyperbolize, "... allegedly inspired scientists to create “Roundup Ready Seeds.” The genetically modified seeds have the ability to resist the powers of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready weed killer, enabling them to grow even when the chemical spray touches upon their tiny little sprouts." Again, Roundup Ready is not an herbicide. Next, notice the anthropomorphization of the seeds' "tiny little sprouts" that are given the supernatural power to resist the evil chemical spray. Here the author is so confused that she can't decide if the Roundup Ready seeds are malevolent or adorable. Maybe they're malevolent while they're seeds and adorable when they transform into tiny little sprouts.
You close with, "The consumption of glyphosates, based on what I have seen, may not actually be safe. That is a material fact here." "May not be safe" is not a material fact, it's a conjecture. I did not search for studies on the safety of the consumption of glyphosate by humans. If such a study were commissioned by Monsanto then the granola crunchers wouldn't believe it, and if it were commissioned by Mother Jones then the rest of us wouldn't believe it. Stalemate? Maybe you could submit an FOI request to the FDA or the dept of agriculture, whichever is the regulating body, for the safety studies on Roundup. Start here, if you like (http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=roundup+...)
P.S. Of course I'm familiar with Crunchy Frog! And don't forget Spring Surprise and the sweetie with lark's vomit. Leaded gasoline would keep the crickets away - and kill the plants, thus not maximizing yield. Please stop confusing rational self interest with the deleterious effects of crony capitalism and government regulations designed to protect an industry from the consequences of its own wrongdoing or to raise the barriers to entry for competitors. Those things are the exact opposite of Capitalism.
It's not really a debate. I just yearn for more knowledge of this. And, when I see comments that are way out there, like "granola crunchers", I kind of shut down. Might as well say, "Well, he's clean-cut and wearing a white lab coat so I believe him." (Wha?)....
There is a lot of emotion in topics like this - a little name-calling, misinformation. I always see this when a scientific quest goes political. It's too bad, really. I guess that's just part of the modern American landscape.
"At times like these, when their fat little comforts are threatened, you may be sure that science is the first thing men will sacrifice."
Yes, thalidomide had one hell of a lot of bad 'side effects,' to say the least. I met one of them personally... a great manager and software engineer, despite her deformities.
But for anyone to demand that any new development or invention be tested for 'perfect safety for everyone and forever' is ludicrous at its heart.
The good news is that humans seem to be good at identifying the ACTUAL problems that surprise us and often react strongly and effectively in creating controls and new policies.
"Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future..." [Yogi Berra?]
Your concerns about 'unanticipated consequences' were recently illuminated in the Dilbert comic strip.
Wallace laughed without humor. "You ever try farming without technology? It's a lot more charming in those old woodcuts than it is in the flesh. In a good year, we get nothing to eat but cheese and beef. Cook the beef good. No antibiotics. If you could lay your hands on a supply of good medicine for cows it would be worth its weight in cheese."
Alex chuckled politely. But why would cheese be valuable in Wisconsin? He would have felt stupid asking. Instead he asked, "What do you do in a bad year?"
Wallace grunted and his voice hardened. "In a bad year we starve." "
- Fallen Angels
"They are. Gran was a plant geneticist before they outlawed it. Pop—pop was a farmer. They still do a little bootleg bioengineering in their basement. Developed a cold-resistant strain of wheat that let them bring in a crop for three years after their neighbors went under. They had to stop last year, though. Gran seeded a rust virus that killed off their crop."
"What? Why? If they'd continued-—Sherrine, it's going to get a lot colder before it ever gets warmer."
She looked away; beat her mittens together. "Hungrier, too." Her voice was hard and angry. "But their neighbors-—their good, kindly, salt-of-the-earth neighbors were starting to talk about witchcraft. They couldn't imagine any other reason why my grandparents' wheat thrived while theirs died. Peasants always believe in witchcraft."
- Fallen Angels
http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/06717...