Why GM crops are vital

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Geronimo
thank you.

would it be fair to characterize your antipathy to science as a matter of personal faith or do you think it is something you could logically defend?

well i could say its a gut instinct - and you'd no doubt feel that would hand you some kind of 'victory'. But its also slightly more than that in my kind of logical.

1. As we've become more clever scientificaly, we've also become more dangerous to ourselves and the world around us. I can't see we've become 'wiser' in the same measure.

2. Computers are evil(so most things that come from them have a good chance of also being evil).

3. I dont think scientists are as clever as they think they are. In that its very easy to be lured by hubris with all the amazing things we can do. Power is a huge aphrodisiac.

Also, it's appropriate that you recognize how complex ecology is.1 Why do you assume that GM crops will do more harm to this complex ecology than non GM crops? It's already been noted that even stone age things like goats can be immensely destructive ecologically so why assume specifically banning GM products will make the complex ecologies more robust?

ref 1: I assume that as scientists are not as clever as they think(see point 3 above) - i don't believe they can really understand the long term effects of GM on people or the eco-sphere/world habitat.
Added to that, the huge pressure they are under from the people that pay their wages and want to see a return.......well in that scenario i'm not the only one who can see a huge chance for a serious problem to arise.

So for GM the only way i can see it being used safely and responsibly, is to take the profit out of it completely - all of it. If GM really is the way to save mankind from starvation then we need much more government and public control/information over its use. All these 'cloak and dagger' type tactics that are often employed by the pro GM bodies dont fill people with confidence in the product imho.

Is this the kind of thing? Its not too random or unlogical i hope - i tried to keep it straight

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Which happens all the time, right? Crossing nuts with cereals, in traditional horticulture? You type it as if that's something that actually happens.

I've got a shiny penny in my pocket. If you can provide just one example of someone crossing nuts and cereals through cuttings, I will send it to you.

I didn't say it was a brazil nut with a cereal. I said that any kind of cross involving a notorious allergen as found in brazil nuts would carry a risk of transfering the allergen to the resulting plant. The point is that what is required is recognition of the allergenic properties of the plants one is working with and that this is not an issue exclusive to GM.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
No it doesn't. It boils down to whether we fully underdstand why increases in allergies are happening, and whether continued reliance on a narrow range of GM cereals is wise.

to the first part, if we do not understand the increase in allergies to your satisfaction then the only appropriate remedy is more research into the cause of the observed trends in allergies. Nothing else including exclusively using organic foods (by any definition of "organic") should be expected to make the slightest difference or be in any way a more safe or conservative approach than another.

In any event, over the course of these trends increases in "organically" grown produce have been as marked as increases in consumption of GM products and yet the allergy trends are the same in areas where GM products are consumed in huge quantities as in places where hardly any GM products are consumed but large amounts of "organic" foods are consumed.

To the second part avoiding reliance on a narrow range of crops is what Gm research is all about. It's about developing new things fast enough so we don't have to have simple mono cultures. monocultures can be seductive no matter how the crops in use were developed. Banning GM products, and especially the resulting reduction in Gm research only makes reliance on a narrow range of crops more likely in the long term.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Aha- there we go. The truth is that the variety isn't wide. In the west we're massively over-reliant on wheat and dairy products.

For the sake of devloping an allergy it is important to understand that frequency of contact to a particular allergen does not correlate to greater incidence of allergy to that allergen. I emphasize that because if anything the reverse trend is observed in that continual exposure to gradually increasing amounts of an allergen is in fact one of the few tools (Allergy immunotherapy) available to desensitize allergy sufferers to their allergen.

Furthermore, with respect to exposure to ingested allergens, it tends to be the size of the bolus encountered rather than the frequency that determines whther the immune system has a chance to develop a new allergy to it. So, if a kid has strained peas in baby food form just a couple of times growing up that should be enough opportunity to sensitize them to that allergen, and a kid whose immune system is hypersensitive and who tends to develop uncommon allergies will not have required wide varieties of food on an ongoing basis to demonstrate the various allergies. The odd new meal experiences here and there will have revealed the hypersensitivity even if most meals consist of exactly the same thing day in day out.


Finally, product bans are intrinisically contrary to increased variety. Bans by their very nature area all about reducing variety not enhancing it!

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
What's wrong with prominently advising consumer that it contains GM elements?

What do you think would happen to the fortunes of sellers of products containing xanthan gum if every such product required a prominent label indicating that it contained xanthum gum? Do you think this would be fair? Some people are doccumented to be alergic to xanthum gum and yet prominent labels aren't required.

Or what if a law were passed requiring that consumers be prominently advised that their produce may have been grown in the presence of live Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria? Would that seem fair? Why do suppose we don't plaster our products with a prominent advisment for everything that might be thought of as important to some consumer?

[child of Thor]

I'm happy most of the super markets in the uk do label there stuff as GM free - it helps give me choice

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by child of Thor
I'm happy most of the super markets in the uk do label there stuff as GM free - it helps give me choice

it also takes away choice.

I love peanut butter and peanut butter products but I'm mildly allergic to them. The side effects of eating such products are bad enough to deny me any opportunity to enjoy them anymore. If it wasn't for large markets being closed to GM products I'm confident that true "hypoallergenic" peanut butter would be available. But because such peanuts would have to be grown and handled in such a way as to be absolutely isolated from all peanuts that might somehow find their way to anti-GM markets the price barrier is too high for anybody to surmount. It's too bad because the bennefits of such a product would be tangible and obvious.

Pray tell, what bennefit does your avoidance of GM products give to you?

[chequita guevara]

When is the last time you really enjoyed some efficient tasting food?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I had some great Ruth Chris steaks from beef fed on GM corn.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When is the last time you really enjoyed some efficient tasting food?

Whenever I pay less due to that efficiency I enjoy my food more.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Edit:

Pray tell, what bennefit does your avoidance of GM products give to you?

Well its kept my sperm very fertile, and i dont get sick, suffer from any allergies and have always been a very healthy individual with no weight problems. I depress my doctors, which is always a good thing

like many other people i do wonder if the riseing rate of cancers and contaminants in our bodies and the world around us has a connection - i suspect so.

But more importantly mine and many others contribution is helping the GM industry avoid making a potentialy huge mistake that would make the introduction of cane-toads into australia or the mass use of DDT in 70's uk look like a minor problem in comparison(and its difficult to come up with agri comparisons as GM is too new and unique in its power).

Man has never been very good at bettering nature imho.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by child of Thor


Well its kept my sperm very fertile, and i dont get sick, suffer from any allergies and have always been a very healthy individual with no weight problems. I depress my doctors, which is always a good thing

And that's from eating non-GM is it?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

One possible solution is the very fertile sperm part could be from lack of sex.

[child of Thor]

Could be to the former (but is more likely that i grew up in a family that always eat un-processed/grew as much of our own food as possible - GM is a new kid on the block, and america's health/enviroment will be the test platform for the theory i suspect)

and probably not it to the later

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Or what if a law were passed requiring that consumers be prominently advised that their produce may have been grown in the presence of live Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria? Would that seem fair? Why do suppose we don't plaster our products with a prominent advisment for everything that might be thought of as important to some consumer?

We do.

Just think. If foodstuffs actually informed the customer of GM ingredients, the manufacturers might just have to use their increased efficiency to compete on cost grounds, passing on savings to the public. I realise this may be considered communism, but it's nice communism, I promise.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
One possible solution is the very fertile sperm part could be from lack of sex.

Or female hormones leaking into recycled drinking water through increased use of contraceptive pills. That's another theory.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Could be to the former (but is more likely that i grew up in a family that always eat un-processed/grew as much of our own food as possible - GM is a new kid on the block, and america's health/enviroment will be the test platform for the theory i suspect)

?

How did you come up with this hypothesis? What chemical pathways do you suspect?

[JohnT]

Well its kept my sperm very fertile, and i dont get sick, suffer from any allergies and have always been a very healthy individual with no weight problems. I depress my doctors, which is always a good thing

Well, ****, you just described me.

Great bit of evidence, there!