Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto

[stone]

Gumby, I don't have children. If I did, I'm sure I wouldn't get much say in what they ate. Everyone has more sense then to listen to me . I guess I might wince a little whenever I saw them drinking cola or eating kitkats but I wouldn't seeing them eating "healthy" food from a GMO (eg corn on the cob or whatever).

I do the weekly supermarket shop and I fill the trolly up with kitkats and cola because I do as I'm told .

[Gumby]

Interestingly, the quality of the chocolate in candy bars is much better in the UK than in the US. Even Kit Kats and Twix bars are made with better ingredients in the UK. They taste so much better over there. It has something to do with how "chocolate" is legally defined in Europe. The standards are much higher over there.

So, I think it may be difficult for other Western nations to grasp just how f*cked up the food supply has become in the US in such a short amount if time.

On a side note, the cyanide-producing Tifton-85 grass was actually a cultuvated hybrid — not a GMO. But, if anything that underscores just how dangerous GMOs have the potential to be. Scientists knowingly took a cyanide-producing African grass and cross-bred it with a Bermuda grass — in attempt to only breed the desirable traits of both grasses. They likely tested the resulting grass with short term studies and celebrated when the resulting grass was found to be cyanide-free over the short term. 15 years later the "safe" hybrid spontaneously begins acting like its African parent and emits the same cyanide gas it was designed not to emit.

Clearly genetic manipulation is not an exact science. And it shouldn't be casually thrown into the food supply.

[stone]

Gumby, living things are always going to be weird and complex. The GMO changes we make are tiny tweeks. That is why I think all of this GMO scare is such baloney.  Food safety needs to be viewed in a wide ranging and rational way. Systems need to be in place for when something such as a food poisoning outbreak or that cyanide example take place. Knee jerk rejection of a whole field of technology such as GMOs seems to me totally irrational and missing all genuine food safety priorities.

[Gumby]

The GMO changes we make are tiny tweeks. That is why I think all of this GMO scare is such baloney.

That's bull crap.

It's been well documented that the so-called "tiny" changes injected by a "gene gun" results in much larger unintended genetic changes as the chromosomes are broken apart by the force of the gene insertion.

Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a "gene gun" into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant. These processes create massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant's DNA.[1] Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of expression.[2]

Source:
[1] J. R. Latham, et al., "The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation," The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7; see also Allison Wilson, et. al., "Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications," Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews Vol. 23, December 2006.

[2] Srivastava, et al, "Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome microarray analysis," Mol Med. 5, no. 11(Nov 1999):

See also: Cellini: Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops§ [PDF]

...Furthermore, here are two scientific papers detailing just a few of the documented unintended consequences with GMO crops:

http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Conservati ... 202003.pdf
http://www.unionccs.net/images/library/ ... s_GMOs.pdf


Stone, how do you have so much faith in genetics when you barely seem to know the various arguments against it?

[MediumTex]

Stone, I may have missed this earlier in the discussion, but what are the rules in the U.K. regarding genetically modified crops?

In other words, are you actually eating the food you are talking about here?

[stone]

Gumby, as I said, even if the transgenesis method creates a mess in the rest of the genome, the transgene can (and is) bred onto a clean background. It doesn't take many generations before you get the transgene introgressed onto the new genome that is entirely from the strain that you have been crossing it against not the one in which the transgene was initially intergrated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introgression

[Gumby]

Gumby, as I said, even if the transgenesis method creates a mess in the rest of the genome, the transgene can (and is) bred onto a clean background. It doesn't take many generations before you get the transgene introgressed onto the new genome that is entirely from the strain that you have been crossing it against not the one in which the transgene was initially intergrated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introgression

And yet, why do you suppose geneticists have so much trouble with unintended consequences of genetic manipulation?

[stone]

Stone, I may have missed this earlier in the discussion, but what are the rules in the U.K. regarding genetically modified crops?

I guess I am, I just googled to find out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink ... QandA.html

Can we buy genetically modified crops on our supermarket shelves?

GM ingredients are already in food available on supermarket shelves, mostly in cooking oils containing GM soy or oilseed rape. However these will be labeled, according to EU law. Most supermarkets have banned GM ingredients in their own-brand products. In the world as a whole we have eaten two trillion meals containing GM over the last 12 years.

Most farm animals in Britain are fed GM soy and no supermarket can guarantee that dairy or meat they stock is not from animals fed GM.

[stone]

Gumby, as I said, even if the transgenesis method creates a mess in the rest of the genome, the transgene can (and is) bred onto a clean background. It doesn't take many generations before you get the transgene introgressed onto the new genome that is entirely from the strain that you have been crossing it against not the one in which the transgene was initially intergrated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introgression

And yet, why do you suppose geneticists have so much trouble with unintended consequences of genetic manipulation?

Gumby, why do web site designers sometimes hit glitches? What puzzles me is why you see this as such a doom laden Pandora's box. Why aren't you more worried about a Terminator style takeover by computors or whatever?

[Gumby]

Gumby, why do web site designers sometimes hit glitches? What puzzles me is why you see this as such a doom laden Pandora's box.

Not sure how you can even compare the two. If a web designer hits a "glitch," usually nobody's health is at risk. Maybe somebody doesn't get to read about Lindsay Lohan or Madonna for a few hours. If a geneticist makes a mistake, millions of people could get sick or have medical consequences. The two are not even remotely comparable.

And once again, you've avoided the question — this time by asking an unrelated question.

So, I'll ask you again...Hopefully you can provide a real answer.

If the changes are so "tiny" and controlled, as you say, why do you suppose geneticists have so much trouble with unintended consequences of genetic manipulation?

[stone]

Gumby, if something is complicated (as a plant is) then a tiny controlled change can have unintended consequences. You are saying that geneticists "could"  make millions of people sick. True, but the reality is that we just have lots of hysterical scares and no actual harm. To me your "could" is just like the "could" in Terminator where the computors take over. Even Gumby an expert web designer hits glitches and so clearly humans can't fathom the awesome complexity of computors so goodness knows what satanic powers will be unleashed.

[Pointedstick]

You are saying that geneticists "could"  make millions of people sick. True, but the reality is that we just have lots of hysterical scares and no actual harm.

I thought Gumby had posted some links to actual harms that have befallen people as a result of GMO food.

[Gumby]

Gumby, if something is complicated (as a plant is) then a tiny controlled change can have unintended consequences. You are saying that geneticists "could"  make millions of people sick. True, but the reality is that we just have lots of hysterical scares and no actual harm. To me your "could" is just like the "could" in Terminator where the computors take over. Even Gumby an expert web designer hits glitches and so clearly humans can't fathom the awesome complexity of computors so goodness knows what satanic powers will be unleashed.

No. Many, many unintended consequences of GMO food have already been discovered. Unintended toxins and anti-nutrient profile changes have already been found. You claim that no "actual harm" has been done, but if you're willing to admit that "a tiny controlled change can have unintended consequences" (your words, not mine) then it stands to reason that it's only a matter of time before people become sick from GMO foods.

It's mind boggling that you would compare "computers taking over" with the well-documented unintended toxin and anti-nutrient profile changes found in GMO crops.

[Gumby]

You are saying that geneticists "could"  make millions of people sick. True, but the reality is that we just have lots of hysterical scares and no actual harm.

I thought Gumby had posted some links to actual harms that have befallen people as a result of GMO food.

GMO cotton has causes allergenic reactions in workers and consumers who touch GMO cotton. Many animals have gotten sick from eating GMO plants (birds, cattle). Animals are our canaries in the coal mine.

I get the feeling like Stone is just bored and is trying to argue his opposition just for fun — despite all the evidence raising red flags on GMO food.

[stone]

Gumby, you are very wrong, I passionately think that the anti-GMO lobby is a tragedy.

[Gumby]

Gumby, you are very wrong, I passionately think that the anti-GMO lobby is a tragedy.

Even if, one day, it turns out that millions of people get sick from eating GMO foods?

[stone]

The cyanide grass example of Gumby's is a classic case of a new plant variety that has nothing to do with GM, having a harmful unintended effect. Are we to stop any new plant varieties? I genuinely believe that GM created plants are no more likely to have harmful effects than novel crops from other sources.

[Gumby]

Classic hybrid manipulation is obviously acceptable — since it is much more limiting — but its dangers underscore the risks with unnatural and poorly studied GMO manipulation. So, you have absolutely no way of knowing if GMOs are more safe than classic hybrid manipulations.

Again...Stone, you seem to have trouble answering direct questions. Not sure what that's all about.

Let's try again...

If, one day, it turns out that millions of people, or children, get sick from eating GMO foods, would you still think that the anti-GMO lobby is a "tragedy"?

[stone]

IF that happens then obviously I will have been proved wrong and you will have been proved right.

If "Terminator" comes true then I will also regret having used that as an example of far fetched nonsense.

[Gumby]

IF that happens then obviously I will have been proved wrong and you will have been proved right.

Now I'm just trying to figure out why you would advocate taking such a risk with the health and well-being of a massive population. Most GMOs in Western nations are produced to improve profit margins and shareholder profits, not mainly to help starving people in Africa. Improving profit margins is hardly a good reason, IMO, to take such massive risks in food safety.

I think it's worth mentioning that many anti-GMO supporters aren't necessarily trying to outlaw GMOs — many people just want proper labeling (in the US) so we can make a choice as to whether we want to consume them or not.

[WiseOne]

We seem to be breeding a new type of humans who may live longer than their predecessors, but who will require a much more expensive set of medical services to achieve this longer life.

Humans circa 1900 might be thought of as a 1978 Honda Civic, a car that would go 200,000 miles without much more than gas, oil and tires.  Humans today are more like a 2012 Honda Civic, which might go 220,000 miles, but it's going to need a heck of a lot more than gas, oil and tires to get there.

Indeed.  Our kids can no longer manage to get through school without ADHD drugs, many adults and kids can no longer get through life without drugs for "bipolar disorder", many middle aged adults need gastric bypass surgeries, back surgery, medication for hypertension and diabetes, physical therapy, and of course handfuls of pain meds, and aging is synonymous with various preventative medications such as anticholesterol agents, beta blockers, and aspirin.

The only correction I'd make to the above:  The modern Civic equivalent only goes 180,000 miles.  Life expectancy in the U.S. is dropping.

[Lone Wolf]

The only correction I'd make to the above:  The modern Civic equivalent only goes 180,000 miles.  Life expectancy in the U.S. is dropping.

From what I see, life expectancy in the United States is clearly and consistently rising:

This is the chart that I was looking at.

[stone]

Anyone is free to sell stuff labeled as "non-GMO" if that is what it is. In the absence of any reason to believe that GMO origin has a nutritional relevance it seems to me that that is the way around it should be.

[MachineGhost]

The only correction I'd make to the above:  The modern Civic equivalent only goes 180,000 miles.  Life expectancy in the U.S. is dropping.

Technically, I think that is only for obese people.

[MachineGhost]

Anyone is free to sell stuff labeled as "non-GMO" if that is what it is. In the absence of any reason to believe that GMO origin has a nutritional relevance it seems to me that that is the way around it should be.

But stone, its not just about nutritional relevance but all of the other unintended consequences.  Even though the current GE crops have been shown to be less nutritional than regular, nevermind organic.

In time, scientists may work out all the kinks of tinkering with evolution.  But right now its like using whale oil in kerosene lamps which had a lot of negative health consequences.

You've got to come up with some strong, non-industry-sponsored counter-arguments if you can find any, otherwise you're just going to appear as an apologist.  Have you consider that your beliefs may be directly correlated to your lack of power over your dietary choices, i.e. you feel no responsibility?