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.
Be my guest if you want eat GM foods but there is concern about them, Zambia, in the midst of a famine wouldn't even accept GM food aid.
Russia is currently in the process of banning GMO foods.
That's the tragic effect of blind emotion overcoming reason. There's no credible scientific evidence that GMO foods are unsafe. What do those poor starving people have to fear from transgenic foods? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Last week two types of GMO corn were given the green light to be grown in France for the first time. And a group of Asian countries including India, Malaysia and thailand that currently have legal bans against growing GMO crops have come to the realization that that transgenic technology may have something to offer in solving persistent agricultural or health issues their people are facing. So they've formed a consortium to research possible solutions, but they have to do that research outside of their countries, and then if they come up with something promising they'll drop the bans.
seedless watermelons .....GMO
Tangerine.....GMO
grapefruit....GMO
every strawberry you ever ate......GMO...they are all hybrids
you like bread and rolls.....Wheat; most modern and ancient wheat breeds are themselves hybrids. Bread wheat is a hexaploid hybrid of three wild grasses; durum (pasta) wheat is a tetraploid hybrid of two wild grasses......geneticly modified from the original state
The big difference between those natural methods and modern GMO is that they're splicing genes now. Not only that, they're mixing animal genes in with plant genes. Institute for Responsible Technology - FAQs
The big difference between those natural methods and modern GMO is that they're splicing genes now. Not only that, they're mixing animal genes in with plant genes. Institute for Responsible Technology - FAQs
That's not a truthful website. For instance, they repeat the now thoroughly debunked story about sheep eating GMO Bt cotton in India and dying. But Bt insecticide, which has been used by organic farmers for over 60 years is not toxic to people or animals, nor even to most bugs, only specific ones that are pests to corn and cotton. GMOs did not kill those sheep, so why is that story still up on their website? Because anti-GMO activists don't care about the truth, they only care about demonizing the technology.
Also, consider that genes are sequences of 4 molecules, which scientists record as A, C, G, or T, and a sequence like TACAGTATC that appears in a cabbage genome is identical to one with the same code from a rabbit. Once a snip of that gene code is removed from one organism and reproduced, there's no way to tell which it came from, plant or animal.
And an ear of corn has 32,000 genes (humans have only 20,000), so making changes in one or two of those genes to turn specific characteristics on or off doesn't change everything. It's still an ear of corn.
That's not a truthful website. For instance, they repeat the now thoroughly debunked story about sheep eating GMO Bt cotton in India and dying. But Bt insecticide, which has been used by organic farmers for over 60 years is not toxic to people or animals, nor even to most bugs, only specific ones that are pests to corn and cotton. GMOs did not kill those sheep, so why is that story still up on their website? Because anti-GMO activists don't care about the truth, they only care about demonizing the technology.
Also, consider that genes are sequences of 4 molecules, which scientists record as A, C, G, or T, and a sequence like TACAGTATC that appears in a cabbage genome is identical to one with the same code from a rabbit. Once a snip of that gene code is removed from one organism and reproduced, there's no way to tell which it came from, plant or animal.
And an ear of corn has 32,000 genes (humans have only 20,000), so making changes in one or two of those genes to turn specific characteristics on or off doesn't change everything. It's still an ear of corn.
Did you read the quote from the court decision? Consumers have all kinds of questions about all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean the government has a compelling reason to require the food manufacturers to tell you.
For example, I might have a personal belief that the month a cow was born in affects the quality of the milk, so I demand a label on the milk to tell me that information. But scientific research shows this to be irrelevant, simply an urban myth, so there's no reason for the government to mandate this. And if that myth has been used to demonize milk from cows born in months with no R in them so that people are scared of it without cause reason, then all the MORE reason not to require labels.
And that's the situation we've arrived in today, with lots of people scared of GMOs, but scientific research saying there is nothing unsafe about them, so the term itself is demonized, and the government cannot require it to be used on labels.
There is if people are going to use it improperly, to infer improper or irrelevant information the patent number was not designed to convey. If they started doing that, somebody would create an app to label something as toxic poison, with no proof, as they're already doing now.
And for manufactured foods like frozen dinners it could be a nightmare, with this batch of corn coming from this farm, the next batch coming from another farm that grows a different type of corn, and the same with the soybean oil and the sugar used in the recipe
Yes, for a specific reason... to inhibit copying, and to protect the owner's rights under the law. Buy a patented rosebush, and it will have a tag on it with the patent number on it, to warn you not to illegally clone the plant for resale. The same does not apply to a jar of spaghetti sauce.
Besides, GMO foods have already been on the market so long that the original patents are expiring, so they could just continue producing them without a patent number.
Sorry, there's no way to do an end run on this. You can't force unwanted labels onto food producers without a compelling reason, and at this point there is none.
But that has nothing to do with patents, and it really has nothing to do with GMOs either. It's not unique to either. Plants have been naturally cross pollinating forever. Matter of fact, that's been a key tool of plant breeders for thousands of years, searching for new varieties with desirable characteristics among the naturally crossbred offspring. Transgenics simply offers new tools to achieve new results.
Yes I did read it, hence my specific response to this ruling.
The govt gets to decide what it wants to do, unless they can be made to do otherwise. In the case of companies like Monsanto there is serious conflict of interest, since they directly profit from the shares of the corp. (nm other ways) If you get to profit from a patent no reason not to reference it.
Disclosing a patent number on a product is going to misinform people and be a nightmare, really? That is your argument? (btw patent expiration is irrelevant here.)
I think the purpose of patents is fairly common knowledge. However, when you patent something you cannot control, that works both ways, not one way. Kinda hard to recall such a product, once it has been let loose.
Patents claim ownership via intellectual property and invention. By definition this is most definitely not the same as what is naturally already there.
The end run seems to be direct conflict of interest by those in authority and those profiting, trying to have it both ways. I find the reasons I mentioned very compelling.
Not only that, they're mixing animal genes in with plant genes.
I'd be concerned if the reverse were true, mixing plant genes into animal genes, lol. There's nothing to fear from individual animal or plant genes being spliced into plants. It's not like your food is all of a sudden going to grow teeth and try to eat you or something
I'd be concerned if the reverse were true, mixing plant genes into animal genes, lol. There's nothing to fear from individual animal or plant genes being spliced into plants. It's not like your food is all of a sudden going to grow teeth and try to eat you or something
So in your world, the first thing from an animal that would be extracted would be the genes for dander?
By far and away the worst allergens are from plants, especially nuts. But even then, they wouldn't be taking the genes responsible for those compounds
Allergens are caused by many things; can come from both plants and animal sources. What compounds?
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.
