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.
My views on this have nothing to do with corporate profits. The science says they are safe. Should we question the science? If so, should we cherry pick or apply the same standard across the board, say to climate science?
Comparing the science of GMOs and climate change is a red herring. The correct comparison is GMOs to the pharmaceutical industry. They have standards and procedures they have to follow, why not GMOs.
The question is one of safety. Some drugs are found to be unsafe during testing. The same may apply to GMOs. Not all GMOs are created equal. Some may be safe and others not.
Why you would want to have your family to serve as guinea pigs to test the safety of GMOs is beyond me.
how does it make no sense? be specific, and i promise to try to dumb it down for you as much as necessary.
why do you keep avoiding my previous questions?
By definition, GMO's contain DNA that has been artificially modified. Your statement that it contains "no foreign DNA" makes no sense. Either you are confused, or you are yammering about the origin of the DNA. Either way, it makes no sense, or adds no value to this discussion.
In fact, GMO's contain DNA that has been modified, and the long-term consequences of this are unknown at best. Many believe they are known, and the outcome is bad. But if you want to deny that, then the best you can have is "unknown".
That is how it makes no sense. Now, continue with dumbing it down for us, please....
By definition, GMO's contain DNA that has been artificially modified. Your statement that it contains "no foreign DNA" makes no sense. Either you are confused, or you are yammering about the origin of the DNA. Either way, it makes no sense, or adds no value to this discussion.
i'm afraid you are the one confused, my friend. no, that is not the definition today. DNA can be, and is, modified without introducing foreign/exogenous DNA via genome editing.
it adds everything to the discussion because it fundamentally alters what we mean when we say 'genetically modified.' by USDA guidelines, plants genetically edited using CRISPR-Cas and similar methods are NOT regulated the same way as those developed using exogenous DNA:
Quote:
Under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques as long as they are not plant pests or developed using plant pests. This includes a set of new techniques that are increasingly being used by plant breeders to produce new plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods. The newest of these methods, such as genome editing, expand traditional plant breeding tools because they can introduce new plant traits more quickly and precisely, potentially saving years or even decades in bringing needed new varieties to farmers. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-rel...ing-innovation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
In fact, GMO's contain DNA that has been modified, and the long-term consequences of this are unknown at best. Many believe they are known, and the outcome is bad. But if you want to deny that, then the best you can have is "unknown".
That is how it makes no sense. Now, continue with dumbing it down for us, please....
have you ever eaten a ruby red grapefruit? that variety was developed by bombarding the plant with radiation (cobalt-60). what was the outcome of that one, which can now be sold and labelled as 'Organic' despite the fact that whatever mutations were induced that made it more desirable were COMPLETELY unknown, as opposed to current methods where it is known exactly what changes were made?
I am most likely eating GMO foods now. All I care about is safety. If in order to make sure the GMO food is safe and it takes ten years to do a study, so be it. If they can do it in one year so be it. To allow chemical companies to skip steps or rush approval is unacceptable.
And don't tell me though that if Monsanto mixes pig DNA with a strawberry that it is my interest, or my family interests, that it get to market as quick as possible. That is pure BS.
how will extending the approval process and keeping it more cumbersome and expensive make you any safer? it won't.
the eevul Monsanto isn't mixing pig DNA with a strawberry, i can assure you. rest easy.
AL Gore pushed the stupidity of using Corn for ethanol ...better crop to use would have been hemp/cannabis
Oh please. You guys just can't stop making up stuff can you?
Federal tax credits for ethanol started in 1978. Plenty of Republicans supported and voted in favor of them long before Al Gore's tie breaking vote in the mid 90's. Gingrich wanted to roll them back in 96, but Bob Dole told him he would not let the Senate approve it. The 2 most recent increases in ethanol subsidies came under GWB's watch along with a Republican congress. Both parties are scared to do anything because of the farm vote because they know how many hard working farm people rely on big daddy government subsidies.
although the antis love to frame this as 'big, nasty Monsanto and assorted chemical companies greedily ramrod horrifically dangerous products through approval process so they can poison you and chortle with glee as you die in agony,' it's much broader than that obviously ridiculous characterization.
for example, chestnut trees, genetically engineered using the older methods by introducing a single gene encoding oxalate oxidase from wheat - conferring resistance to chestnut blight - have existed for several years, awaiting regulatory approval. the developer wants to distribute them free of charge to eventually replace the billions of trees that were lost in years past.
although the antis love to frame this as 'big, nasty Monsanto and assorted chemical companies greedily ramrod horrifically dangerous products through approval process so they can poison you and chortle with glee as you die in agony,' it's much broader than that obviously ridiculous characterization.
for example, chestnut trees, genetically engineered using the older methods by introducing a single gene encoding oxalate oxidase from wheat - conferring resistance to chestnut blight - have existed for several years, awaiting regulatory approval. the developer wants to distribute them free of charge to eventually replace the billions of trees that were lost in years past.
doesn't that sound like a good thing?
I've notice most of the ant-GMO folks are pot smokers... they're gonna FREAK when they find out cannabis has be genetically modified for the better part of 20 years!
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.
