Jump to content
advertisement_alt

Monsanto Protection Act/Frankenfish

Recommended Posts

norcaljeff    2

Monsanto has the money to go through the hoops required to get their GMOs into production, but all the backlash has made the smaller GMO operations unable to get their discoveries into production. This is why the only GMOs you see today are coming from GIANT companies that are obviously maxing profits at the cost of the farmers.

And the story of gov regulation to "help the people" continues

Northkato pwning itt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neeek    42

Yea, because selecting based on physiology is super precise... especially when you're selecting for polygenic traits and shifting thousands of genes...

Tons of amateur scientists thinking they know more than geneticists itt.

I was responding specifically to you saying that "selective breeding is more dangerous and less tested"

1) Its not less dangerous. Introducing new traits into plants and then placing them in the environment has the potential for more untoward effects than combining the traits of two plants already found in the environment. Monsanto wanted to introduce a transgenic crop that produced seeds that wouldn't grow. The theoretical danger of this terminator toxin spreading to neighboring crops is pretty obvious. I'm not saying genetic modification is inherently/particularly dangerous, I'm just saying the is theoretically MORE dangerous than selective breeding.

2) Also, selective breeding has been around for quite some time, so to say that it is "less tested" is also getting a bit carried away.

I have been addressing some of the absurd claims in this thread by the people claiming its terribly dangerous and unhealthy previously. I'm just saying lets not get carried away. I'm not a geneticist, but I think its safe to say I know what I'm talking about on a basic level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

northkato    0

You'd think it was basic, but there's much more too it. The formation of gametes comes from a process called meiosis, which has a unique feature called "crossing over" where parts of the chromosome will shift from one chromosome to another, and depending where this occurs, could create some very unintended consequences.

This is IN FACT much more dangerous and unpredictable than adding a specific gene to a specific location on a solved genome.

Also, this process takes MANY generations to get the necessary result, and cannot keep up with the rapidly evolving pathogens that are the cause of crop destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neeek    42

You'd think it was basic, but there's much more too it. The formation of gametes comes from a process called meiosis, which has a unique feature called "crossing over" where parts of the chromosome will shift from one chromosome to another, and depending where this occurs, could create some very unintended consequences.

This is IN FACT much more dangerous and unpredictable than adding a specific gene to a specific location on a solved genome.

Wait, so you are saying that crossover between parents, which occurs through like sequences (i.e. the same gene) to increase genetic diversity is MORE dangerous than introducing new genes directly into the environment? Perhaps minutely altering the function of a particular protein is more dangerous than new proteins? for real?

by your argument we should ban plants from reproducing, because its dangerous.

why does everyone that has a real point always have to be dishonest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

northkato    0

Wait, so you are saying that crossover between parents, which occurs through like sequences (i.e. the same gene) to increase genetic diversity is MORE dangerous than introducing new genes directly into the environment? Perhaps minutely altering the function of a particular protein is more dangerous than new proteins? for real?

mother of god.

this post has too many fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neeek    42

mother of god.

this post has too many fails.

crossover between parental homologous chromosomes. you got me!

looks like you're just going to play the dyzalot game?

FWIW, I have a degree in biochemistry, and worked in a lab doing genetic recombination/protein production, and am finishing up med school as we speak. I know how it all works, albeit likely not to the degree that you do if you are a geneticist, but enough to have a real discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

northkato    0

As a scientist, when you hear about subjects like evolution or global warming, who's opinion do you value? I value that of the scientists. In subjects like history, I value the opinion of historians. As a biochemist, I'd think you'd have the same values. Crossing over doesn't line up perfectly on the gene locus, and sometimes you get interrupted genes, and sometimes the chromosomes don't split properly, and you get things like downs syndrome. When crossing over occurs, the gametes DNA can be significantly different than the parental DNA. Selective breeding can and has been successful at increasing crop yields, but to say it's safer than adding a gene that codes for a specific protein is just incorrect.

The testing done on GMO crops do not test the food as a whole, because for the most part, it's the same as the already existent non-GMO crop. They do however, test extensively on whatever additional protein is being coded for, and especially if it's a protein not normally found in the human diet. The fear around GMOs has been blown out of proportion by GMO opponents who spew propaganda.

I will grant that loss of genetic diversity in crops is the number 1 legitimate concern of GMO crops, but it could just as easily be solved with GMO. It's also true that when hybrid crops first hit the market, the same worries were expressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neeek    42

you're not really making an argument against genetic modification over selective breeding though. You're making an argument against genetic modification over reproduction, and doesn't even take into account that the same things can happen in the second generation of your GMO crop.

Introducing new proteins into the environment will have more untoward effects than selective breeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

northkato    0

you're not really making an argument against genetic modification over selective breeding though. You're making an argument against genetic modification over reproduction, and doesn't even take into account that the same things can happen in the second generation of your GMO crop.

Introducing new proteins into the environment will have more untoward effects than selective breeding.

Correct me if I'm mistaken or overgeneralizing, but I believe Monsanto's GMO crops are seedless. I know at least some of them are. This could be just to raise profits by selling the seed every year.

Also, GMOs offer fast solutions to newly evolved pathogens, similar to how flu shots will predict which strains will be prevalent in the coming years.

It's not my business to tell people what to eat, but I feel a need to correct misinformation, especially when it's hindering scientific advances that could potentially solve hunger crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

just happened to find this on my FB page. http://gmo-awareness.com/2011/05/12/monsanto-dirty-dozen/

if monsanto is a good thing and doesnt cause any probs. why are so many people against them? what is their incentive?

i'm prob just ignorant. but a plant that is able to live after the soil it is growing in has been saturated with round-up doesn't seem like a healthy thing to be digesting. it is prob better to eat GMO crops over not eat anything at all, but it also doesn't seem like those have to be the only two choices.

also if its true that monsanto engineers plants that don't make seeds so they can control seed market and re-sell to farmers every year, that just doesn't seem right.

it just seems at some point that if a company becomes too big it can create environmental effects that become expensive and difficult to overcome.

are the pro-GMO people completely fine with what Monsanto is doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

It's not my business to tell people what to eat, but I feel a need to correct misinformation, especially when it's hindering scientific advances that could potentially solve hunger crisis.

what do u see as the causes of the hunger crisis? is it that our planet is currently not producing and/or is incapable of producting enough crops/food to feed the population?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rayspizza    0

I am also not a geneticist, but I've been in Biotech most of my career. I do protein-protein interactions and stats... basically

anyway, I do understand that there is potential for transgenic traits to cause harm in the environment. I think as far as food is concerned, like toxicology from eating GMO foods - very low risk. RE: Plants and animal spreading transgenic traits and causing a species ending event. I'll side with DYZ more on this one. An invasive species is an invasive species, it doesn't matter if its GMO or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

by your argument we should ban plants from reproducing, because its dangerous.

why does everyone that has a real point always have to be dishonest?

Looool the ironing

if monsanto is a good thing and doesnt cause any probs. why are so many people against them? what is their incentive?

Looooooooooooooool jfc.

Lotta people worried about Loose Change, chemtrails, mk ultra, bilderberg, loch ness, aliens(, man), etc. They must be on to something, it's the only possible answer! lololololol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

northkato    0

what do u see as the causes of the hunger crisis? is it that our planet is currently not producing and/or is incapable of producting enough crops/food to feed the population?

distribution seems to be the main issue at this point.

and for the record, i do not 'support' monsanto, but the claims levied against them are outlandish. the capabilities of GMOs are not limited to increasing yields and selling pesticides.

and for the record, from what i've read, round up is less toxic to humans than a lot of organic certified chemicals, and requires far less application. If it were really that bad ,we'd see higher rates of cancer in midwest farmers, and they have some of the lowest cancer rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

northkato    0

the propaganda against Monsanto is further fueled by all the hippy anti-GMO groups. the worst thing about them is that they are a capitalist corporation motivated by profit while holding a monopoly on a potentially booming industry. the OP is proof of how biased the masses are against anything that involves their name, and therefore, GMOs.

Just google Monsanto and look at all the loaded language.

MONSANTO GUILTY OF CHEMICAL POISONING!!!

but in the article...

Monsanto found guilty of unintentional chemical poisoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justman    0

Diid you even read the law? Its just a hidden backroom deal buried in the pages of the HR 933.

It effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO/GE seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future.

So even if health risks are found (which I am with you, I doubt) the courts have no ability to stop the use of the seeds and crops.

Its corporations and government colluding at the expense of the consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

warden    0

Diid you even read the law? Its just a hidden backroom deal buried in the pages of the HR 933.

did you read it? it says:

In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412© of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

now forgive me for not really wanting to totally figure out what the hell this is saying, but it seems to me that this doesn't actually insulate monsanto from liability. what it does seem to do is prevent courts from stopping the sale of GMO products. i really can't parse out what part of this allegedly insulates monsanto from liability. it stops people from halting the regulatory process, which is a separate thing.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dyzalot    89

Once again it is just too much government. The government shouldn't care where we get sugar. There shouldn't be tariffs on imported sugar. There shouldn't be subsidies for corn that results in more corn syrup than is really needed. And if we didn't have this aversion to importing a product that can be produced elsewhere more efficiently, farmers could have made the decision to not grow those sugar beets anymore and switch to a different crop while Americans just import sugar from somewhere else. Instead we get this perverted synergy of government and business that keeps them both in power at the expense of the consumer.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

northkato    0

Once again it is just too much government. The government shouldn't care where we get sugar. There shouldn't be tariffs on imported sugar. There shouldn't be subsidies for corn that results in more corn syrup than is really needed. And if we didn't have this aversion to importing a product that can be produced elsewhere more efficiently, farmers could have made the decision to not grow those sugar beets anymore and switch to a different crop while Americans just import sugar from somewhere else. Instead we get this perverted synergy of government and business that keeps them both in power at the expense of the consumer.

I've been a liberal-democrat all of my life, but this situation has definitely sparked a change in my thinking. Obviously, this transition wont happen instantly, but I'm definitely starting to identify with some of these concepts I formerly argued against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EyeKnows    0

I've been a liberal-democrat all of my life, but this situation has definitely sparked a change in my thinking. Obviously, this transition wont happen instantly, but I'm definitely starting to identify with some of these concepts I formerly argued against.

lol, what makes you think the sugar quotas/subsidies are a liberal thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

northkato    0

lol, what makes you think the sugar quotas/subsidies are a liberal thing?

government regulation is a liberal thing. that's the issue here. gov't regulation is what makes passing GMOs too expensive for smaller companies that have actual breakthroughs that don't involve selling pesticides and improving yields. GMO isn't limited to food supply, there are countless possibilities in this market, and gov't restrictions are keeping private sectors from making good things happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


    • Accolades & Cashes

  • Top 10 Ranked Players

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.