"Non-GMO" eating "organic" produce's lunch, baffling yuppie Moms

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,513
24
76
Mankind has been fucking around with crop genetics since the dawn of agriculture. So you're pretty much going to have to stop eating if you want to avoid GMO food.

This is what I came to post essentially. Corn originally was very small compared to the size of cobs today. It was increased by only reseeding from the biggest of the bunch year after year.

And same thing with animals. Before there was stupid and easy to raise cows, man hunted aurochs. It is believed sometime between 10,000-15000 years ago someone in the area of Syria/Anatolia was the first to domestic the aurochs, which was one mean beast and grew upwards of 3000 pounds.

By continually to only keep and breed the most gentle, we have the cow today. Every single cow alive today can be genetically traced to that first group of aurochs that was penned in and domesticated by man, that is, genetically modified for the benefit of man.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,721
6,201
126
.....blah blah blah.......

I examine data all day long and if one thing could be learned from all that analysis, it is that outliers exist in every dataset. That website isn't just for lefties, crackpots of all stripes can find something to be fearful of. The article you post is great fun, from references likening our government to Stalin's Soviet utopia all the way to a conspiracy regarding the death of a Wyoming legislator. Yeah, these are your typical lefties alright. Well.......not really but I do find it amusing you think you've got a cock.

"I thought everyone understood the liberal brain defect that accepts and trusts science only when it is used as a tool to control the lives of *other* people.", admits to no outliers.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,721
6,201
126
This is what I came to post essentially. Corn originally was very small compared to the size of cobs today. It was increased by only reseeding from the biggest of the bunch year after year.

And same thing with animals. Before there was stupid and easy to raise cows, man hunted aurochs. It is believed sometime between 10,000-15000 years ago someone in the area of Syria/Anatolia was the first to domestic the aurochs, which was one mean beast and grew upwards of 3000 pounds.

By continually to only keep and breed the most gentle, we have the cow today. Every single cow alive today can be genetically traced to that first group of aurochs that was penned in and domesticated by man, that is, genetically modified for the benefit of man.

Excuse me but breeding and genetic modification are completely different things. The ignorance of science in this thread is astounding. Most of you are too dumb to bother to teach. Go back to school or stop stuffing yourselves full of stupid opinions.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
This is what I came to post essentially. Corn originally was very small compared to the size of cobs today. It was increased by only reseeding from the biggest of the bunch year after year.

And same thing with animals. Before there was stupid and easy to raise cows, man hunted aurochs. It is believed sometime between 10,000-15000 years ago someone in the area of Syria/Anatolia was the first to domestic the aurochs, which was one mean beast and grew upwards of 3000 pounds.

By continually to only keep and breed the most gentle, we have the cow today. Every single cow alive today can be genetically traced to that first group of aurochs that was penned in and domesticated by man, that is, genetically modified for the benefit of man.

that is selective breeding not gene splicing.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,447
7,386
136
that is selective breeding not gene splicing.

So? What's wrong with gene splicing? It's a slightly different method than what was used in the past, but it is agricultural progress. We can incorporate the gene we desire instead of having to go through a directed evolution process that may also introduce undesirable traits.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
So? What's wrong with gene splicing? It's a slightly different method than what was used in the past, but it is agricultural progress. We can incorporate the gene we desire instead of having to go through a directed evolution process that may also introduce undesirable traits.

I must be confused on where i said it was wrong? can you point it out?
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,447
7,386
136
I must be confused on where i said it was wrong? can you point it out?

I'm not accusing you of saying that or even suggesting which school of thought you might find yourself in. It's simply a common theme in the grand social debate about GMOs that frequently comes from the antiGMO crowd.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
So? What's wrong with gene splicing? It's a slightly different method than what was used in the past, but it is agricultural progress. We can incorporate the gene we desire instead of having to go through a directed evolution process that may also introduce undesirable traits.


Actually it's completely different, your not going to genetically modify plants with animal or insect genes through cross pollination or other methods used in past.

Genetic engineering vs. selective breeding


Q. What's the difference between cross pollination/grafting/selective breeding that farmers have been doing for centuries and genetic modification? Just curious, because it seems like farmers have been screwing with genes for a long time now. – Joe, NY

A. You’re right, Joe. Farmers have used selective breeding for ages to increase the robustness and output of their crops and to produce and encourage other desirable traits. But there are some pretty huge differences between the techniques they’ve traditionally used and the high-tech ones being implemented today on mega farms that produce GM corn, cotton, soy, and canola (the four crops largely converted to GM technology so far). Put it this way: If traditional selective breeding is like two people with two different sets of genes being paired up by a matchmaker who thinks they’ll have pretty, healthy kids together, then modern high-tech GM breeding is like Victor Frankenstein slicing ‘superior’ body parts out of fifteen different corpses and using them to sew together his powerful, yet frighteningly unpredictable, monster.

Whoops. Did that sound slightly unscientific and/or possibly biased? Then don’t take it from me—take it from Craig Holdrege, director of The Nature Institute. He explains that the most critical difference between natural and GM breeding is that natural breeding crosses only organisms that are already closely related—two varieties of corn, for example—whereas, in contrast, GM breeding slaps together genes from up to 15 wildly different sources. Here’s how he explained the convoluted GM breeding process to me in an email:

To make a GM plant, scientists need to isolate DNA from different organisms—bacteria, viruses, plants, and sometimes animals (or humans if the target gene is a human gene). They then recombine these genes biochemically in the lab to make a "gene construct," which can consist of DNA from five to fifteen different sources. This gene construct is cloned in bacteria to make lots of copies, which are then isolated. Next, the copies are shot into embryonic plant tissue (microprojectile bombardment), or moved into plant tissue via a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium) that acts as a vector. After getting the construct copies into the embryonic plant tissue, whole plants are regenerated. Only a few plants out of many hundreds will turn out to grow normally and exhibit the desired trait—such as herbicide resistance.

Or take it from Joe Mendelson, director of the Center for Food Safety. Here’s how he put in it in an email:

The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like.

And it’s not just cotton, corn, soy, and canola that are being genetically modified anymore—GM alfalfa and GM sugar beets are on the way.

Many food safety activists are, like Holdrege and Mendelson, concerned about the effects these six major GM crops will have on ecosystems, on agricultural production, and on our bodies. All that aggressive lab work, they argue, has the potential to bring consequences we can’t anticipate. Genetic modification has certainly upped agricultural output, which is a plus when food prices are high and many parts of the world are experiencing or are at risk for famine. But because almost all of us eat GM foods and produce every day, you’re wise to ask tough questions about the relatively new and largely untested technology.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,447
7,386
136
Actually it's completely different, your not going to genetically modify plants with animal or insect genes through cross pollination or other methods used in past. Genetic engineering vs. selective breeding

I am well aware of what genetic engineering and selective breeding are. You can still get your desired trait to arise if you use directed evolution (selective breeding) processes. It will just take a lot longer. Cutting out what you want and putting it into the plant is a way to bypass that whole process while having much tighter control of the end product.

I wouldn't take the views of the Center For Food Safety as fact. They're a well-known anti-GMO organization.
 
Last edited:

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,513
24
76
Excuse me but breeding and genetic modification are completely different things. The ignorance of science in this thread is astounding. Most of you are too dumb to bother to teach. Go back to school or stop stuffing yourselves full of stupid opinions.

No shit. My point is that humans have been manipulating plants and animals for thousands of years, only mating/planting those with the desired traits over and over until something new is created, that wouldn't have evolved naturally. In a way, the results are the same whether from a lab or selective breeding.

Do you think today's cow would have evolved naturally?
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,577
4,659
136
No shit. My point is that humans have been manipulating plants and animals for thousands of years, only mating/planting those with the desired traits over and over until something new is created, that wouldn't have evolved naturally. In a way, the results are the same whether from a lab or selective breeding.

Do you think today's cow would have evolved naturally?

Hell no.
I don't think anyone is bothered by any of it either.

It's when Monsanto splices wart-hog genes onto turnip D.N.A. that raises eyebrows.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,447
7,386
136
Why shouldn't it? Or rather, if you can't see why it does, you'll never understand marketing.

It should only be worrisome for people who don't understand the science or listen to the experts on these issues. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of those people.

Hundreds of independent studies have shown no discernable harm from plants that have been created through GE technology. Yet here we are today going in circles with specious questions to deflect. Inserting a single gene, like a gene that codes for an antifreeze protein which protects against frost damage, is not transplanting the genome of one species into another. But fish tomato and other ludicrous labels help to stir the ignorant masses into a rage against Biotechnology companies.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
It should only be worrisome for people who don't understand the science or listen to the experts on these issues. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of those people.

Hundreds of independent studies have shown no discernable harm from plants that have been created through GE technology. Yet here we are today going in circles with specious questions to deflect. Inserting a single gene, like a gene that codes for an antifreeze protein which protects against frost damage, is not transplanting the genome of one species into another. But fish tomato and other ludicrous labels help to stir the ignorant masses into a rage against Biotechnology companies.

The experts have actually been misleading people. I fell for the pro-GMO hype until I looked into it some more. It turns out that it's not as precise as they'd have you believe. The process of engineering foreign genes is haphazard and depends a lot on luck. There are typically a lot of random disruptions to the genome in addition to the intended splice.

GMO isn't really any better than mutation breeding currently. BTW, mutation bred crops aren't considered GMO and can even be labelled as "organic". Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

http://earthopensource.org/index.ph...ng-is-precise-and-the-results-are-predictable
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,721
6,201
126
No shit. My point is that humans have been manipulating plants and animals for thousands of years, only mating/planting those with the desired traits over and over until something new is created, that wouldn't have evolved naturally. In a way, the results are the same whether from a lab or selective breeding.

Do you think today's cow would have evolved naturally?

Of course, today's cows did evolve naturally. All of the genes in modern cows evolved naturally via mutation and were concentrated by humans in breeding populations via the same mechanism that nature does via population isolation. The cow is perfectly adapted to human herding techniques and completely natural.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,721
6,201
126
I am well aware of what genetic engineering and selective breeding are. You can still get your desired trait to arise if you use directed evolution (selective breeding) processes. It will just take a lot longer. Cutting out what you want and putting it into the plant is a way to bypass that whole process while having much tighter control of the end product.

I wouldn't take the views of the Center For Food Safety as fact. They're a well-known anti-GMO organization.

Jesus, you will never be able to duplicate what is done by gene splicing via evolution. We are early in our understanding of genetics and organism development and we have no idea of the consequences of our tampering. What we have is just like nuclear, folk who have a vested financial interest and the propagandized they create, telling us it's safe. No such guarantee can be given.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,447
7,386
136
Jesus, you will never be able to duplicate what is done by gene splicing via evolution. We are early in our understanding of genetics and organism development and we have no idea of the consequences of our tampering. What we have is just like nuclear, folk who have a vested financial interest and the propagandized they create, telling us it's safe. No such guarantee can be given.

No amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.

Scientific organizations, made up of independent scientists, who have no profit motive (it's laughable that anyone would go into scientific research for the money), all approve the use of GMOs: the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society of Medicine, The European Commission, etc... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...l-independent-science-organizations-weigh-in/

But ignore that last paragraph. It's all pro-GMO propoganda anyway, right?

This might be a good place to start if you'd like to learn more: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/

On a side note, it's rather hilarious that the same people that criticize anti-climate change folks for ignoring science then turn around and deny the science when it comes to genetically modified foods.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,721
6,201
126
No amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.

Scientific organizations, made up of independent scientists, who have no profit motive (it's laughable that anyone would go into scientific research for the money), all approve the use of GMOs: the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society of Medicine, The European Commission, etc... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...l-independent-science-organizations-weigh-in/

But ignore that last paragraph. It's all pro-GMO propoganda anyway, right?

This might be a good place to start if you'd like to learn more: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/

On a side note, it's rather hilarious that the same people that criticize anti-climate change folks for ignoring science then turn around and deny the science when it comes to genetically modified foods.

Start here: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

In 2079 a billion people die of GMO induced cancer as well as several trillion loss to the world economy.
 

hans030390

Diamond Member
Feb 3, 2005
7,326
2
76
Start here: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

In 2079 a billion people die of GMO induced cancer as well as several trillion loss to the world economy.

This is a terrible source. How is that not blatantly obvious to you? From their first point:

"Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk."

We don't really have evidence to back up our claims, but JUST IN CASE GUYS! PROTECT YOURSELF EARLY! CORRELATION EQUALS CAUSATION!

I've had a lot of GMO-based conversations with my GF, a topic she studied while pursuing a degree in biology. She's not concerned with GMOs inherently (her explanations were good, and she could pretty easily point out how half-baked and skewed a lot of anti-GMO "research" is), though corporate practices surrounding GMOs can be questionable. That's a VERY important distinction to make. Too many bleed the two together and get confused.
 
Last edited:

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,577
4,659
136
It should only be worrisome for people who don't understand the science or listen to the experts on these issues. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of those people.

Hundreds of independent studies have shown no discernable harm from plants that have been created through GE technology. Yet here we are today going in circles with specious questions to deflect. Inserting a single gene, like a gene that codes for an antifreeze protein which protects against frost damage, is not transplanting the genome of one species into another. But fish tomato and other ludicrous labels help to stir the ignorant masses into a rage against Biotechnology companies.

Like I said...you have no understanding of marketing.
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
Not sure what the outrage is over GMO. Unless they are splicing corn with man eating sharks, that results in corn that becomes man eating itself,... I see no problems with it.

Also, nice to see how not supporting GMO is on par with not supporting climate change/evolution - you've reached a new level of sensationalism, grats,... and, it's only Monday.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Why should it raise eyebrows?

This. I have yet to hear an argument that's not FUD (with some retarded analogy like splicing corpses).

Functionally you're doing the same thing, splicing genes, but in less deterministic fashion. On a long enough horizon, whatever genetical engineering does can occur in nature via mutation.

Hypothetically speaking, if you arrive with crop A that is frost resistant due to a gene that was inserted and a crop B that is frost resistant with the identical genome due to random mutation, is B better because it's "natural"?

It is a bit ironic that the same people that decry far right anti-science are using the very same FUD arguments against GMO. "Oooh you can't know what it will do booogey boogey" despite years and years of peer reviewed research.
 
Last edited:

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,577
4,659
136
This. I have yet to hear an argument that's not FUD (with some retarded analogy like splicing corpses).

Functionally you're doing the same thing, splicing genes, but in less deterministic fashion. On a long enough horizon, whatever genetical engineering does can occur in nature via mutation.

Hypothetically speaking, if you arrive with crop A that is frost resistant due to a gene that was inserted and a crop B that is frost resistant with the identical genome due to random mutation, is B better because it's "natural"?

It is a bit ironic that the same people that decry far right anti-science are using the very same FUD arguments against GMO. "Oooh you can't know what it will do booogey boogey" despite years and years of peer reviewed research.

I don't think the anti-GMO crowd objects as much to the safety of eating them, but to the Evil Empire marketing tactics of Monsanto, et al.

If it's good science in bad hands, what difference does it make?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |