No GMO's Please! Said No African Child Ever

[djAdvocate]

Aug 11, 2013 14:48:36 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Aug 10, 2013 21:44:54 GMT -5 oped said:

I wonder how much our medical bills would drop if our food bills went up a bit.

i don't think we have to forage. But I do not think it has been proven that we can eat unnaturally and still eat healthy. 

It doesn't have to be proven to me that eating unnaturally isn't healthy. When I eat something like a peach that is 3 times the size it should be and tastes like wet cardboard, common sense tells me that it has almost no nutrition in it. The lack of nutrients in our foods is a major reason so many of us are sick. 

that, and that we are being slowly poisoned to death by a billion things both manmade and not.

[Deleted]

I'm saying virtually all food is genetically manipulated.  Some to a significant degree.  The plant food we eat frequently does not even resemble what it originally was in nature.  Pork, chicken, and beef are also far from natural.  And now that we farm fish, fish will get that was as well.

Some excellent examples of "unnatural" foods are broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts and all cabbages.  They all were originally the same species of plant.  Now there are dozens.

[Deleted]

Aug 11, 2013 14:48:36 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Aug 10, 2013 21:44:54 GMT -5 oped said:

I wonder how much our medical bills would drop if our food bills went up a bit.

i don't think we have to forage. But I do not think it has been proven that we can eat unnaturally and still eat healthy. 

It doesn't have to be proven to me that eating unnaturally isn't healthy. When I eat something like a peach that is 3 times the size it should be and tastes like wet cardboard, common sense tells me that it has almost no nutrition in it. The lack of nutrients in our foods is a major reason so many of us are sick. 

What makes you think the tasty peach was more natural than the other?  Both have been cultivated and genetically manipulated.  One maybe was just from a far away land and picked a little too soon so it could make it to market?  I don't think being "natural" had anything to do with it.

[Deleted]

So Bob, your assessment then is that broccoli, etc are artificial?

We may manipulate breeding patterns, but breeding in itself is a natural process. Gene manipulation on a molecular level is not a natural process. I think it's naive to consider GMing as the same as cross breeding.

[Deleted]

I guess it depends on how you want to define natural.  People like the word "natural" because it implies something found in or created by nature.  Couldn't be farther from the truth!

Yes, broccoli is artificially created by humans.

I think it's naive to consider GMing as the same as cross breeding.

Me, too.  Would be crazy to consider them the same.  My only point is that almost nothing we put into our bellies is what mother nature intended.  But we adapt and evolve.  As do cows.  Although I don't know if they evolve to eat

[Sum Dum Gai]

Very little of the food we eat exists in nature. I think certain meat would be the closest one could get to "natural". Have you ever seen a big, juicy tomato growing wild? Nearly 100% food we eat has been modified in some way or another. Most natural versions are not even remotely similar to the version we eat.

NPR had an interesting piece on tomatoes a while back.  They were grown in beach sand which is organically basically barren.  Every nutrient the plant needs is sprayed on.  Doing it that way they avoided most pests because the sand had no plants growing in it so it didn't get attacked by pretty much anything that would attack the tomatoes, so they didn't have to use pesticide.  The tomatoes produced were some variety that had been modified to be very firm so they shipped well.  They're super bland though.  It was a really interesting idea, but since they have to add pretty much every single nutrient the plant needs I don't think they have the right mix figured out yet which is probably why they don't taste like a more naturally grown tomato.

On the one hand it seems super bizarre to look at a dry lake or sand beach and think, "Man, this would make great farmland," but if they can get the process down right, what the hell.

[Deleted]

I guess it depends on how you want to define natural.  People like the word "natural" because it implies something found in or created by nature.  Couldn't be farther from the truth!

Yes, broccoli is artificially created by humans.

I think it's naive to consider GMing as the same as cross breeding.

Me, too.  Would be crazy to consider them the same.  My only point is that almost nothing we put into our bellies is what mother nature intended.  But we adapt and evolve.  As do cows.  I wonder if the ag industry breeds cows to select those that best handle corn?

On a related topic, what do you think of those $400k hamburgers grown from stem cells?

[Deleted]

Aug 11, 2013 17:12:48 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Very little of the food we eat exists in nature. I think certain meat would be the closest one could get to "natural". Have you ever seen a big, juicy tomato growing wild? Nearly 100% food we eat has been modified in some way or another. Most natural versions are not even remotely similar to the version we eat.

NPR had an interesting piece on tomatoes a while back.  They were grown in beach sand which is organically basically barren.  Every nutrient the plant needs is sprayed on.  Doing it that way they avoided most pests because the sand had no plants growing in it so it didn't get attacked by pretty much anything that would attack the tomatoes, so they didn't have to use pesticide.  The tomatoes produced were some variety that had been modified to be very firm so they shipped well.  They're super bland though.  It was a really interesting idea, but since they have to add pretty much every single nutrient the plant needs I don't think they have the right mix figured out yet which is probably why they don't taste like a more naturally grown tomato.

On the one hand it seems super bizarre to look at a dry lake or sand beach and think, "Man, this would make great farmland," but if they can get the process down right, what the hell.

That sounds similar to hydroponics, which also seems like an unnecessarily expensive way to grow food....

By the way, the reason store-bought tomatoes are bland is because the gene(s) that deteremined the flavor are physically close to the gene(s) that determine the thick skin.  So breeding in the thick skin unfortunately bred out the flavor.

[Sum Dum Gai]

It basically is hydroponic, except they're doing it on a huge scale and using natural sunlight.

[Deleted]

Oped, I guess what I'm saying is that the bland, store-bought tomatoes are no less "natural" than flavorful, home grown heirloom tomatoes.  They're just different.  Equally un-natural.

[Deleted]

I do not consider bland, store bought tomatoes to be unnatural. Although I might consider them to be treated with unnatural substances, or raised under less than ideal practices. I'd have to look at data to consider if they were more or less nutritious. 

If they approve the GMO tomatoes currently under development, I will consider those unnatural. 

I consider chemical additives unnatural. Etc. 

i think it's a semantics thing somewhat, where we draw the line. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 11, 2013 15:04:58 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I'm saying virtually all food is genetically manipulated.  Some to a significant degree.  The plant food we eat frequently does not even resemble what it originally was in nature.  Pork, chicken, and beef are also far from natural.  And now that we farm fish, fish will get that was as well.

Some excellent examples of "unnatural" foods are broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts and all cabbages.  They all were originally the same species of plant.  Now there are dozens.

What's amazing to me is that food has been genetically manipulated in a haphazard way for centuries- bred, and cross-bred, and mixed and matched in a "hey, let's try this out" kind of way, or by other more natural "accidents"-- and there's, I guess, nothing wrong with that.

But let a scientist using modern technology and a much fuller knowledge than we've had in the past make a more precise change, and all of the sudden the scary GMO food is going to eat through us like acid and we're going to melt like the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard Of Oz when she got water splashed on her?  Doubtful.  

And the real question is- how on Earth could the tools at our disposal today that allow us to be precise enough to modify three (3) genes be worse than the "let's just see what happens" splicing and dicing of yesteryear?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Btw- I grow quite a lot of vegetables in a hydroponic garden on my back lanai. I've built a clever (if I do say so myself) PVC trellis / maze) and I have tomatoes growing. It's the cheapest way I've ever done it, and I've greatly condensed the space my soil garden used to take up. It was born of necessity when we moved up to the Space Coast from Delray where I had to leave my garden go untended and rent a house up here where I couldn't exactly go digging up the back yard. It's marginally more expensive, but the product is of higher quality, and I get more, and more consistent harvests. It has worked so well, that I've removed my herb garden from it's various pots and boxes and started a separate hydroponic herb garden. I recently acquired property where I intend to go full blown acquaponics.

The expense is basically fertilizer- with acquaponics, the fish are supposed to solve that problem. Currently with the hydroponic set up, I have to replenish fertilizer-laced water which is flushed over the roots feeding the plants.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 11, 2013 8:54:33 GMT -5 oped said:

How to Make Marshmallow Fluff Without Corn Syrup

Makes about 8 ounces

Ingredients:
Egg white, from a pastured chicken (1) — where to buy
Honey, raw, or real maple syrup, grade B, or a combination (5 ounces) — where to buy honey; where to buy maple syrup
Sea salt (pinch) — where to buy sea salt
Vanilla extract, homemade or organic (1 tsp) — how to make homemade vanilla extract

Directions:
1. In a large bowl, combine egg whites, honey or maple syrup and sea salt.
2. Mix with mixer or with KitchenAid (whisk attachment) on high speed until it is thick and has the consistency of Marshmallow Fluff (about 7-10 minutes)
3. Add vanilla extract and mix until blended.
4. Use immediately — or can be stored in the fridge, or frozen.

Watch yourself with that sea salt.  You need iodine.

[Deleted]

I use kelp. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 11, 2013 22:45:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 11, 2013 15:04:58 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I'm saying virtually all food is genetically manipulated.  Some to a significant degree.  The plant food we eat frequently does not even resemble what it originally was in nature.  Pork, chicken, and beef are also far from natural.  And now that we farm fish, fish will get that was as well.

Some excellent examples of "unnatural" foods are broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts and all cabbages.  They all were originally the same species of plant.  Now there are dozens.

What's amazing to me is that food has been genetically manipulated in a haphazard way for centuries- bred, and cross-bred, and mixed and matched in a "hey, let's try this out" kind of way, or by other more natural "accidents"-- and there's, I guess, nothing wrong with that.

But let a scientist using modern technology and a much fuller knowledge than we've had in the past make a more precise change, and all of the sudden the scary GMO food is going to eat through us like acid and we're going to melt like the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard Of Oz when she got water splashed on her?  Doubtful.  

And the real question is- how on Earth could the tools at our disposal today that allow us to be precise enough to modify three (3) genes be worse than the "let's just see what happens" splicing and dicing of yesteryear?

Hybridization at least guarantees that any new genes introduced are from similar organisms. You don't cross-breed an orange with a bacterium. No such restrictions apply to gene splicing.

Furthermore, hybridization is subject to a significant degree of genetic compatibility between species. You cannot cross-breed an apple and a cabbage, for example, which may be a significant genetic safeguard. No such safeguard applies to arbitrary gene splicing.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

OK, fair point Virgil. Still, it's a big maybe. We don't really know, but opponents of this research / technology act as though we do know there are immediate bad effects. The thing is, we don't know about the long term consequences- but we DO know about the immediate benefits. Just like the OP indicates- if we can save a child from starvation RIGHT NOW, or prevent a serious illness or condition RIGHT NOW, isn't it worth a throw of the dice?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sorry, kid- but due to possible, but as yet unproven, long term harm to the human race and planet earth- it's better that you starve to death, or develop rickets or go blind, etc.

[Deleted]

So, in the 'old days' you would have eaten all the stores to avoid starvation now? 

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 12, 2013 7:13:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sorry, kid- but due to possible, but as yet unproven, long term harm to the human race and planet earth- it's better that you starve to death, or develop rickets or go blind, etc.

I've already stated that the rewards in this case seem well worth the risks. That doesn't mean the risks don't exist or that we should ignore them in all circumstances.

There have also been GMO experiments with disastrous results. An example that comes to mind is a type of wheat marketed to Indian farmers that had been modified to withstand arid climates. Food yields soared and farmers were happy.

What the farmers didn't realize until years later was that the new strain of wheat also consumed significantly more water per acre than garden-variety wheat, drawing it up out of the aquifers. The wheat fields eventually sucked the water table down to the brine, leaving nothing but salt water. Within two seasons, hundreds of thousands of hectares of land ceased being arable. Food production ceased, and it's expected that the water table will require anywhere from 15-25 years to recover to its original levels.

Hence in that case an unintended consequence more than offset any immediate benefits of the wheat.

[Deleted]

Im trying to imagine grass with a really long taproot.....

Interesting.

[Deleted]

But let a scientist using modern technology and a much fuller knowledge than we've had in the past make a more precise change, and all of the sudden the scary GMO food is going to eat through us like acid and we're going to melt like the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard Of Oz when she got water splashed on her? Doubtful.

 All the cross-breeding ever done wouldn't ever put bioluminescent genes from jellyfish into a tobacco plant.
www.livescience.com/10307-transplanted-genes-plants-light.html

[gooddecisions]

Aug 11, 2013 22:45:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 11, 2013 15:04:58 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I'm saying virtually all food is genetically manipulated.  Some to a significant degree.  The plant food we eat frequently does not even resemble what it originally was in nature.  Pork, chicken, and beef are also far from natural.  And now that we farm fish, fish will get that was as well.

Some excellent examples of "unnatural" foods are broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts and all cabbages.  They all were originally the same species of plant.  Now there are dozens.

What's amazing to me is that food has been genetically manipulated in a haphazard way for centuries- bred, and cross-bred, and mixed and matched in a "hey, let's try this out" kind of way, or by other more natural "accidents"-- and there's, I guess, nothing wrong with that.

But let a scientist using modern technology and a much fuller knowledge than we've had in the past make a more precise change, and all of the sudden the scary GMO food is going to eat through us like acid and we're going to melt like the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard Of Oz when she got water splashed on her?  Doubtful.  

And the real question is- how on Earth could the tools at our disposal today that allow us to be precise enough to modify three (3) genes be worse than the "let's just see what happens" splicing and dicing of yesteryear?

Do you understand the difference between hybrids and GMOs? If you cross-pollinate two types of squash together it produces hybrid squash and absolutely can happen in nature. If you splice the gene of a squash with the gene of a spider (for example), you've done something totally different. Until they can prove that GMOs are 100% safe for human consumption (hint, they haven't even done human trials), then labeling should be mandatory. People preaching "GMOs are safe" without any scientific evidence sound exactly like the people in the 80s who were shouting from the rooftop how much safer transfats are. 20 years later, that turned out to be false. Common sense tells me a company should have to prove they are safe before anyone should have to prove they are not.

[Deleted]

Until they can prove that GMOs are 100% safe for human consumption (hint, they haven't even done human trials), then labeling should be mandatory.

100% safe?  If you could devise a test to prove that, you could probably be a billionaire.  No freaking way it can be proven 100% safe.

Common sense tells me a company should have to prove they are safe before anyone should have to prove they are not.

I agree.  However, let me use milk as an example (not a GMO, I know, but a similar issue).  Milk produced from cows given hormone injections can be tested and shown chemically indistinguishable from milk from cows that did not receive injections.  What more do you want them to do to prove that it is safe?  It's one thing to prove it's safe.  It's something else entirely to soothe irrational fears.

You say it has to be proven safe, but to even think that it might not be safe, you have to be aware of some compositional difference between the two.  Other than the actual gene sequence (which is irrelevant in terms of testing), is there a known difference between GMO corn and non-GMO corn?  (Hypothetical question.  I don't know the answer.)

[Virgil Showlion]

Milk produced from cows given hormone injections can be tested and shown chemically indistinguishable from milk from cows that did not receive injections.

Substance A "is chemically indistinguishable from" substance B is a meaningless qualitative statement.

A study can at most claim that levels of specific chemicals were found not differ more than a certain amount within a specific confidence interval in a series of experiments with a given methodology.

The conclusions become scientifically rigorous only if they respect the scope of the experiment, the methodology can withstand scrutiny (many experiments cannot), and the results are independently confirmed by other methodologically-valid experiments with identical parameters.

And then the farmers change the hormones they're pumping into the cows.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Even if GMO crops are 100% safe, I still see no compelling argument against labeling them.  If scientists want to mix tarantula genes with lettuce and see what happens, they can go for it.  If you want to be one of the first guinea pigs that eats the stuff to see how it will affect you and your children, knock yourself out.  If I'd rather not I should have that freedom, but I have no way of exercising it without labeling that tells me that my food has been grown in a lab somewhere.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2013 15:44:16 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Even if GMO crops are 100% safe, I still see no compelling argument against labeling them.  If scientists want to mix tarantula genes with lettuce and see what happens, they can go for it.  If you want to be one of the first guinea pigs that eats the stuff to see how it will affect you and your children, knock yourself out.  If I'd rather not I should have that freedom, but I have no way of exercising it without labeling that tells me that my food has been grown in a lab somewhere.

Forcing the label implies that it is less safe or there is reason to be concerned. That is the government's reason, anyway.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 12, 2013 15:44:16 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Even if GMO crops are 100% safe, I still see no compelling argument against labeling them.  If scientists want to mix tarantula genes with lettuce and see what happens, they can go for it.  If you want to be one of the first guinea pigs that eats the stuff to see how it will affect you and your children, knock yourself out.  If I'd rather not I should have that freedom, but I have no way of exercising it without labeling that tells me that my food has been grown in a lab somewhere.

The object of labeling is not to inform consumers, it is to scare people.  Have you seen the proposed labels? They're a joke.

[Deleted]

Can you share them? This could be good for a laugh. I'm sure they're meant to be objective. Not....

[Deleted]

I want to be informed.