Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A study in June 2002 reported in the journal Nature found that slugs and snails are killed when sprayed with a caffeine solution, and that spraying plants with this solution prevents slugs from eating them. The percentage of caffeine required in a spray (1 - 2%) is greater than what is found in a cup of coffee (.05 - 07%), so homemade sprays are not as effective. Look for new commercial sprays which are caffeine-based.
Kind of the reason plants create these sorts of alkaloids in the first place, bio defense weapons. Kind of depends on what you are or if you are in the cross fire. Whatever was trying to munch on Strychnos , it decided to hit harder on mammals and birds with strychnine and curare.
Unpredictable, complex and subjective are the key concepts.
Course in just a few years GMOs will put caffeine everywhere and ruin yet one more useful agent.
As to glyphosate.. Yet another overexploited agent creating resistant weeds and yet more complex interactions we don't even know about.
The main thrust of most of the investigative work done in conjunction with GMO's has been aimed at determining something that heretofore hadn't been necessary, that would be the advent of manmade possibilities relative to the safety of our food. Before GMO introduction most of the AG research was aimed at those problems associated with natural occurrences of crop reduction due to various pests or the weather. Now the game changer is certainly on the horizon with GMO foods being another profit enhancer for the AG industry. Oh, I know it's "for our own good" but those who tell us that are those who are making money on the GMO foods.
Of course the argument for these frankenfoods has been financed by those with skin in the corporate farming industry, and the fact that they have had a dismal record so far with their other profit enhancing methods with regard to pesticides and fertilizers migrating to our water sources with relative impunity means they haven't lost the battle with the various environmental groups. far from it, they operate with the nod of approval from the federal agencies that were supposed to protect us but like most of government oversight it's a matter of whose dollars are buying that approval..
Like most everything else in our polarized society this has entered the circus arena of national politics where the facts seem to have little weight, and partisan emotion is becoming the largest contributor to the conversation. We continually hear the armchair "scientists" sounding off with their best parroting of radio talk show nonsense, trying hard to sound knowledgeable they bluff with a fair amount of bluster and anger in a sad attempt to back the same corporate/state combine they profess to hate.
Government (one on the take) cannot and most likely will not prevent any further research or production of these lab supplied foods. instead leaving it up to the voters to decide, not the presence of GMO's, but moreover the meaningless label question. Yes, those voters, the people who watch a lot of TEE VEE and haven't read a meaningful book in ages.
In light of the fact that our air, water, food, and medicine, is now owned and controlled by the corporate class I guess the GMO presence can be looked at as just another example of why we are a nation of sheep who take too many pills, eat garbage that makes us sick and fat, don't read much, and allow others with a profit seeking agenda to make our life style decisions for us.
This thread just proves how ignorant some Liberals are. GMOs are banned in the liberal utopia that is Europe. That tells you everything you need to know right there.
This little math exercise was a bit tongue-in-cheek to illustrate the absurdity of the "insinuation" that 100 Billion animals and 1 Trillion feedings were analyzed. I understand perfectly how these studies are designed and conducted. I also understand that focusing on mortality rates is a farcical fraud since most livestock are processed long before they might develop life threatening disease from consumption of GMO feed.
Straw man argument. The study included other parameters, including productivity, which is quite a sensitive indicator of health among livestock.
Quote:
But death is not the only indicator of I'll health effects, and there is a great deal of evidence showing the degradation of health in animals consuming GMO, to include immune dysregulation, faulty insulin regulation, dysregulation of cholesterol regulation, lower birth weights and rates up to and including sterility, higher incidents of disease, chronic diarea, as well as increased mortality rates, all of which reversed upon switching back to non-gmo feed.
More unsupported assertions.
Quote:
From pig farmers to cattle ranchers, many are reporting dramatic improvements in the health of their animals after making the switch back to non-gmo feed. Of course, these stories aren't reported in the "big study".
Not if they are unscientific and statistically insignificant, no, they shouldn't be. Anecdotal stories don't constitute evidence. They can be useful as pointers to items that should be studied, but if careful research and careful analysis are not brought to bear, anecdotal observations can actually be misleading and confounding.
Quote:
The claim was 100 billion, not 100 million. You wrote it, go read what you wrote! Did you error?
Yes, obviously, it was just a typo on my part. 100 Billion animals is what the study author refers to as the number having been fed GMO feeds, as well as mentioning the 9 Billion per year figure and the study period.
Quote:
I was just pointing out the questionable number of feedings, given the number of animals to illustrate basic problems in the report which YOU are using as your "grand evidence". If such fundamental figures cannot be cited accurately, I find little value in the rest of it. And you'd be all over such errors if it were evidence presented against your point of view!
It was a an obvious typo, no big deal, and the excerpt I quoted stated it correctly. But your calculation and comment was seriously mistaken in a material way.
Quote:
Nevertheless, you acknowledge a very important point that I briefly touched upon earlier, but deserves more discussion. That being the short life cycle of these animals who are processed just as soon as possible. They aren't being raised as pets, nor allowed to live out their natural lifespans, and consequently, their GMO diets are unlikely to kill them dead within such short periods, therefore measuring mortality rates is a very superficial data point that does nothing to prove that the animals are not suffering poorer health as a result of consuming GMO feed.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways... either death rate IS a viable metric, or it is not... the standard issue anti-GMO rhetoric screams about the sick and dying animals caused by eating GMO feeds. As the author of the Forbes article points out, if that were actually true we should all be hip deep in sick and dying animals... but we're not. And this study, AMONG OTHER THINGS, demonstrates that the available data shows no difference on key metrics. And that means the anti-GMO claims are wrong. Period.
Quote:
And these same old tired tactics ... conspiracy theorist ... anti-science people responses are as meaningful and legitimate as the totally corrupt mainstream sources constantly cited, even though they have zero credibility at this point.
Seriously? You list yourself as a conspiracy theorist, and talk like a conspiracy theorist, with no proof for any of your wild claims, then don't want to referred to by your own self-imposed label?
And yes, of course "anti-science" fits you to a T, because you consistently slam scientific research, scientific organizations, scientific methods, scientific integrity, scientific results... and yet, when you occasionally have a desire to make a counter claim you seem more than eager to use pseudo-science as evidence,
Quote:
It doesn't take a scientist to understand that if GMO was as wonderful as is often claimed, the industry wouldn't be fighting so hard against mandatory labeling of that wonderful stuff ... no, they'd be using it as a marketing tool to promote GMO products!!!
How many times are you going to repeat this meaningless canard? You can't convince the public , without proof, that the term GMO means "poison," then expect ANYONE to voluntarily put that label on their products. That's what the Vermont court decision meant when it decried such demonization. And ruled that requiring such labels is unconstitutional.
How many more times need I repeat myself before you get that your argument is not valid?
Quote:
Yes, people are waking up. And no matter how hard people like you try, you aren't going to stop it.
Sorry, I disagree. What I'm all about is getting people to wake up their rational mind, learn to be critical thinkers, and learn to reject emotional appeals that are devoid of truth.
Laws against GMOs, passed out of fear, but devoid of scientific evidence, are beginning to fall as people start to wake up to the facts, that all the scary stuff they have been told about GMOs are without merit, and that there are many benefits to mankind available from this exciting technology.
This massive study should help to turn back the anti-GMO witchhunt before it does any more damage, in a hungry world.
What are you babbling about? Can't win your argument fairly so you decided to pretend I said anything about horrific toxins? My main argument , as has been clearly stated, continues to go unanswered as you keep babbling ,and posturing like an underpaid disinformation officer. Bt is a useful agent is being squandered for short term results. No answer.
good grief. you've already forgotten the paper you cited? the one that invokes the horror of mice poisoned by Bt, with the clear implication being that it is also dangerous to humans?
yet what they actually did was feed live, viable bacteria to the mice instead of GMO food containing Bt, for some inexplicable reason
not a word in your post about Bt being a useful agent, or squandered for short term results.
you actually expect me to answer or address something you didn't even say?
wow. talk about babbling
Quote:
Not my paper.
you didn't post that link? I think you did. now you want to disclaim it? that would probably be a good move.
Quote:
They provide the answer.
suggesting that further studies are required to clarify the mechanism involved in the hematotoxicity found in mice, and to establish the toxicological risks to non-target organisms, especially mammals, before concluding that these microbiological control agents are safe for mammals.
Do you have a problem with concentration or something?
no, they didn't address a single one of those questions by 'suggesting' further studies were needed. of course they puled about 'further studies' being needed.
why don't you try to address those questions, if you're able?
That seems to be a popular opinion but the truth is that GMO are a tool that can be used for many purposes, mainly to increase yield which yes, is good for big agro (more product with same resources), but also good for you and me because more plentiful crops means lower prices and greater availability.
But even if you're not sold on that, GMOs play an even more important role in safeguarding our crops. For example, did you know that the florida orange is dying? 80% of crops are infected with the citrus greening plague. Eventually all orange groves will die and you will not see another glass of orange juice in your lifetime. Except that there are GMO orange varieties being developed that will be resistant to the greening. In this case, GMO is not going to be a driver of increased corporate profits but instead the salvation of Florida
Well, like I stated, the money is still the driver in big AG, and not necessarily the public's good. That said however, I'd be the first to capitulate to good science that has vetted certain types of GMO production. In no way would that change my views regarding the banter about "food cost and availability" being served by the introduction of GMO's on a grand scale. Crappy foods are already cheap and available through the various fast food outlets that have been contributors to the decline in the health of American children.
Years ago the introduction of carcass remains as a protein additive in cattle feed was hailed by the AG community as the newfound "key to the vault" for ranchers willing to risk this change becoming a normal practice, it wasn't of course, but that hasn't slowed down the trend toward more profit in AG at the risk of the public's health. GMO's that can be tested independently of the manufacturers/farmers needs should be a way forward in this debate, I'm no Luddite but I do care about my health.
Well, like I stated, the money is still the driver in big AG, and not necessarily the public's good. That said however, I'd be the first to capitulate to good science that has vetted certain types of GMO production. In no way would that change my views regarding the banter about "food cost and availability" being served by the introduction of GMO's on a grand scale. Crappy foods are already cheap and available through the various fast food outlets that have been contributors to the decline in the health of American children.
Years ago the introduction of carcass remains as a protein additive in cattle feed was hailed by the AG community as the newfound "key to the vault" for ranchers willing to risk this change becoming a normal practice, it wasn't of course, but that hasn't slowed down the trend toward more profit in AG at the risk of the public's health. GMO's that can be tested independently of the manufacturers/farmers needs should be a way forward in this debate, I'm no Luddite but I do care about my health.
I dislike big agro as much as anyone, in fact I think the Federal government needs to pull all agro subsidies for corporate farms and redirect exclusively to independent and family owned operations. The disreputable practices like you cite are egregious and alarming, but just because those companies use GMOs does not in itself make GMOs harmful.
It has to be repeated that genetically engineering food is not creating/inventing new DNA, it's simply moving it from an existing organism to another to intentionally select for a beneficial trait - whether that benefit is for corporate earnings or to make the public healthier or to save a dying crop
That seems to be a popular opinion but the truth is that GMO are a tool that can be used for many purposes, mainly to increase yield which yes, is good for big agro (more product with same resources), but also good for you and me because more plentiful crops means lower prices and greater availability.
But even if you're not sold on that, GMOs play an even more important role in safeguarding our crops. For example, did you know that the florida orange is dying? 80% of crops are infected with the citrus greening plague. Eventually all orange groves will die and you will not see another glass of orange juice in your lifetime. Except that there are GMO orange varieties being developed that will be resistant to the greening. In this case, GMO is not going to be a driver of increased corporate profits but instead the salvation of Florida
I doubt that noting the fact that the gene construct used by mirkov to produce resistance to citrus greening actually comes from spinach will soothe any of the fearful here, but thought I'd mention it anyway.
That seems to be a popular opinion but the truth is that GMO are a tool that can be used for many purposes, mainly to increase yield which yes, is good for big agro (more product with same resources), but also good for you and me because more plentiful crops means lower prices and greater availability.
But even if you're not sold on that, GMOs play an even more important role in safeguarding our crops. For example, did you know that the florida orange is dying? 80% of crops are infected with the citrus greening plague. Eventually all orange groves will die and you will not see another glass of orange juice in your lifetime. Except that there are GMO orange varieties being developed that will be resistant to the greening. In this case, GMO is not going to be a driver of increased corporate profits but instead the salvation of Florida
Its a potentially useful technology. Unfortunately people are still grown in the wild , and given the economic drivers behind it , it will basically get us nowhere.
It is is a technology that generally injects genetic code. The problem is where is it going to get it ? As usual it will be a process of discovery. Genetics are difficult to find, phenotypes are not:
While searching generally for new rootstocks that would allow trees to thrive despite poor soil, cold temperatures or other stresses, Gmitter and Grosser discovered orange trees grafted onto certain test rootstock planted within large groves survived infection with greening.
This solution will be the same thing that stopped phylloxera.
In this case it will be cheaper and easier to use root stocks just like they do with vines.
So Baco Noir or Vidal Blanc hybrids did not take off , the leading solution at one time of genetic manipulation. However now Cabernet will simply use a V riparia root stock. Again what was the real threat here? People's taste in the exact Vinifera variety which is as disastrous as a Bud llight drinking having to switch to Miller.
GMOs are only one possible link in potential solution....to an often avoidable problem:
From the same stupid reasons
Growers had invested heavily over the years in just a few varieties of fruit that grow well in Florida, particularly Valencia and Hamlin oranges. That limited genetic diversity in the fields and left the industry vulnerable to disease.
Mono-culture, and globalization.
The only way to reliably discover resistance is genetic diversity. Unfortunately this is always at odds with our economics until that very last moments.
In my case I just don't want to eat bread fruit all day long. GMOs are largely a solution needed largely for mono-cultural like practices .
All well and good except that GMO companies will only be too eager to over exploit, and will gladly leave nails in the road while opening up a tire repair shop. And then its often only the delivery man, not the one who put it in the box.
This thread just proves how ignorant some Liberals are. GMOs are banned in the liberal utopia that is Europe. That tells you everything you need to know right there.
Your comment just goes to show that some people insist on talking about things without really knowing what they are talking about.
From Wikipedia: As of September 2014, 49 GMOs, consisting of eight GMO cottons, 28 GMO maizes, three GMO oilseed rapes, seven GMO soybeans, one GMO sugar beet, one GMO bacterial biomass, and one GMO yeast biomass have been authorised.
Here's the registry for the European Union of approved GMO crops and products.
OK, everybody got that? IT IS NOT TRUE that GMOs are banned in Europe, so can we please just permanently retire that meme now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
