Support for Prop 37 dropping

[Aeson]

Actually GM food isn't safe, hence the push against labeling.

There are countless genetic mutations that happen naturally. All GM does is pick a specific mutation that is beneficial. Many of these benefits deal with eliminating the need for chemical sprays, which often are potentially harmful.

[Aeson]

I see a lot of charities and stuff begging for money to "end hunger." GM food is how we do that. Those charities should spend that money on researching new advanced farming techniques and food production technology.

Sadly modern agricultural technology is not being used to anywhere near it's full potential. Often intentionally limited in it's output either at our (western) end or by the governments where the food is needed. We don't actually need GM food to end hunger. We could probably do it even with inbred lines if we really wanted to. We just need the will to do it, which we don't seem to have as a species yet.

I'm going to transplant some hybrid watermelon and cantaloupe in a couple days. While they aren't GM, their genes were chosen all the same. I wish I could find some BT corn seed here. Or BT to spray.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You've got to fight for your right to be denied the information necessary to make a free and informed decision on an issue.

[giblets]

That's right. It looks like freedom won

[Uncle Sparky]

I think genetic modifications will tend to make a plant less well equipped to survive in the wild, not more.

Ask a Cavendish banana..

[Fake Boris]

There are countless genetic mutations that happen naturally. All GM does is pick a specific mutation that is beneficial. Many of these benefits deal with eliminating the need for chemical sprays, which often are potentially harmful.

GM does not "pick" mutations, it forces them though.

But thanks for playing Monsanto's cassette.

There is a difference between mutations that happen naturally and those induced in a lab. That is, the body will react differently to a chemical e.g. a pesticide secreted by a GM plant and the same pesticide sprayed there through traditional methods.

The "studies" that found otherwise were subsidized by Monsanto and have been shown to be a fraud.

[Hauldren Collider]

Is there a stupid liberal position Fakeboris doesn't agree with?

[N35t0r]

There is a difference between mutations that happen naturally and those induced in a lab. That is, the body will react differently to a chemical e.g. a pesticide secreted by a GM plant and the same pesticide sprayed there through traditional methods.

Yeah, just how long it takes for them to arise.

[edit:] Also, pesticides secreted by plants? Are there roundup-producing vegetables now?

[Aeson]

GM does not "pick" mutations, it forces them though.

Creating a mutation in a lab is picking the mutation you want. Often that mutation is simply to use the same genes from plants which already have the desirable traits.

But thanks for playing Monsanto's cassette.

Monsanto has done a great thing in reducing the area needed to get a given yield, and reducing the need for pesticide sprays on their crops. This means less of an impact on the environment, and less use of dangerous chemicals.

You would undo this so that more land needs to be worked and more sprays used to achieve the same result. Monsanto's "cassette" is vastly superior to your ignorant fear-mongering.

There is a difference between mutations that happen naturally and those induced in a lab.

If they're the same genetic mutation there is absolutely no difference. While GM crops can be created that never have existed in nature (as far as we know), we can't yet do things with DNA that random mutations could not.

That is, the body will react differently to a chemical e.g. a pesticide secreted by a GM plant and the same pesticide sprayed there through traditional methods.

No. The effect of BT is the same whether naturally occurring or artificial. That effect is roughly 0 on mammals as well. The same (lack of harm to mammals) cannot be claimed by the other chemical sprays it makes unnecessary.

The "studies" that found otherwise were subsidized by Monsanto and have been shown to be a fraud.

The FDA and EPA has approved BT crops from Monsanto, as well as their herbicide resistant crops. The FDA and EPA does their own studies. Not to mention that BT is well known to be safe for mammals (far safer than the chemicals it makes unnecessary).

I prefer reality, the FDA, and the EPA over your conspiracy theories ... thanks.

[MikeH]

Indeed. Other than astronomy, mathematics, chemistry, physics, history and philosophy, what has the Roman Catholic church ever done for us?

Yeah, eg. it was spectacularly helpful to the progress of Astronomy to outlaw, gag and burn proponents of Copernican Astonomy.

You ****.

[DinoDoc]

Yeah, eg. it was spectacularly helpful to the progress of Astronomy to outlaw, gag and burn proponents of Copernican Astonomy.

You ****.

He's likely referring to Georges Lemaître there.

[MikeH]

Probably but I'm likely pointing out that it's not exactly a smooth street of unrivalled scientific excellence from the Catholic Church.

[DinoDoc]

Probably but I'm likely pointing out that it's not exactly a smooth street of unrivaled scientific excellence from the Catholic Church.

You aren't sure what you're pointing out?

[MikeH]

They don't do anything useful now anyway.

[Elok]

The main objection I've heard to Monsanto is that they tend to be heavy-handed; they sue the hell out of anyone who rents out seed-cleaning equipment so farmers can plant seeds from their own harvests instead of buying more from Monsanto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Litigation