Factory of Life (bioengineering article)

[knell]

Almost every crop that is available in most supermarkets has been either selectively bred or genetically modified. We live in a dream world compared to what nature had in store for us without it, not to mention N and P fertilization techniques.

Again this leads us to what we were discussing in the other thread... balancing the health and sexual productivity of the human species with the risks of waste, environmental strain and overpopulation. Either people eat shitty food and die constantly, or you manipulate the environment to the point that the population increases until it creates another limiting factor for growth.

It all pretty much started with Fritz Haber, but if it wasn't him it would have been someone else. His discoveries saved and maimed almost in tandem, but it's essentially the snowball that caused the avalanche. Gregor Mendel, Morgan, Baetson, and Johannsen were quietly working on the primaries to the other pieces of the puzzle elsewhere.

[Terpit]

What I meant by that question was that im sure a lot of these foods that are 'man made' havn't gone through decades of testing, so the governing bodies can't be that strict.
They surely will be with the obviously (potentially) dangerous things but as far as we know, cabbage or whichever of those foods is man made could be the end of us, the damage its causing us just hasnt shown itself yet.
Am I making sense? I cant tell

[knell]

I think I understand what you're asking better now, and the answer is complex (I certainly don't know all of it). Human physiology isn't cut and dry by any means, and pinpointing causation is indeed an arduous process, so concern is definitely warranted.

However, the genes that are selected and manipulated in our food supply are very very specific, not just a random crapshoot. All I can say without getting technical is that in my opinion, the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Again, this isn't to suggest that it's perfect. Biodiversity issues and corporate manipulation can still creep in, but I promise you that these threats aren't being ignored by the people doing the research.

[Terpit]

Well, yeah the potential is incredible, keeps me up at night sometimes, its also very scary

[knell]

Here's an article (pdf) that I normally point people to who are concerned with GM, biodiversity and health, compiled by someone who has put in many more hours than I have on the subject:

https://www.landesbioscience.com/journa ... GMC2-1.pdf

Notice it's mentioned in the conclusion that more studies are needed, and they are indeed being conducted as I type this.

[nowaysj]

[Terpit]

Here's an article (pdf) that I normally point people to who are concerned with GM, biodiversity and health, compiled by someone who has put in many more hours than I have on the subject:

https://www.landesbioscience.com/journa ... GMC2-1.pdf

Notice it's mentioned in the conclusion that more studies are needed, and they are indeed being conducted as I type this.

Thats my reading material for the day sorted, cheers!
Now ill actually look busy whilst at work the smileys on the side of the screen betray me

[nowaysj]

I'd start at the end of that article first, most likely to find out who paid for it, or, I can give you the list:

BASF
Bayer CropScience
Dow AgroSciences
DuPont
FMC
Monsanto
Sumitomo
Syngenta

[knell]

Noways, how about you actually critique the points contained within the linked source rather than spouting paranoid platitudes and archaic straw men that contribute absolutely nothing, then we might actually get somewhere. Something tells me you didn't even glance at it, as it isn't exactly jumping up and down about how wonderful the GM scene is.

Thats my reading material for the day sorted, cheers!
Now ill actually look busy whilst at work the smileys on the side of the screen betray me

it's a lot to work through, but the point is just how exhaustive the research into these matters is, and those aren't even the people with their nose on the genetic manipulation grindstone

[nowaysj]

Knell, how about you don't willingly allow yourself to be misled by minutia?

Ketamine will love this one:

Matthew 7:15-20

[knell]

Let's start with something that isn't ad hominem. Like literally, anything. Don't focus on me (or anyone, corporate or otherwise), and present something that could even be mildly construed as evidence to your point. Don't be defensive, be progressive and informative, and you might end up swaying someone to consider your logic.

[Terpit]

[nowaysj]

Monsanto has already proven their character, I don't feel I need to address their prior malfeasance. They have no credibility whatsoever. If you'd like to consider that an ad hominem attack, feel free to. If you'd like to continue to consider information regardless of the credibility or intention of the source, go ahead as well. But, I know them by their fruits (artful pun, no?).

[Phigure]

monsanto is clearly fucking evil... that paper wasnt written by monsanto though

[nowaysj]

Was funded by them, is there a difference? If I had a million to spend, I'm sure I could wrangle a few phd's to write at length about my 36 inch vibrating monster cock.

[Phigure]

Was funded by them, is there a difference? If I had a million to spend, I'm sure I could wrangle a few phd's to write at length about my 36 inch vibrating monster cock.

i did not know this

then yeah, im highly dubious of the paper's credibility

[nowaysj]

Was funded by them, is there a difference? If I had a million to spend, I'm sure I could wrangle a few phd's to write at length about my 36 inch vibrating monster cock.

i did not know this

Well, let me be the first to tell you, it is ferocious.

[test_recordings]

Was funded by them, is there a difference? If I had a million to spend, I'm sure I could wrangle a few phd's to write at length about my 36 inch vibrating monster cock.

i did not know this

Well, let me be the first to tell you, it is ferocious.

Not just Monsanto, all the big commercial agriculture corporations are in on that paper...

The author appreciates CropLife International’s support of this work.

Check it:

http://www.croplife.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CropLife_International

Here`s a more independent verdict on GM`s effect on diversity:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/ ... even-a-bee

That is a very ignorant and misleading statement. The testing phase concerning GMO certification in the US is insanely strict (and open to review by multiple peer panels, not just the primary testers), as is every phase involved prior and post testing (including public access). It's certainly not perfect, but I have to ask you to please list a (credible) source if you're going to make a claim like that. (Edit: I would actually argue that since there is no "official" regulatory body, that the overlapping balances err on the side of over-regulation).

Look behind the science facade and it`s the same bullshit of tacit co-operation that happened with the media during the Vietnam war as well as the testing of pharmaceuticals. GMO got labelled as `generally recognised as safe` (GRAS- http://www.fas.org/biosecurity/educatio ... crops.html) so what you just stated about scientific testing no longer applies and will probably cause a lot of shit later...

Here`s a start: http://responsibletechnology.org/docs/145.pdf

Here`s another article that deals with the systems used in the USA (and the UK, damn idiots) to detect problems with GMO not being sufficient even if they are tested (and they`re not because they`re GRAS remember?), even though single changes can fuck things up a lot: http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/files2/20501.pdf

It`s irresponsible to trust science blindly. It`s quite amusing that everywhere outside of America bans GM testing on safety grounds yet the same thing rolls on as if nothing happened... think the science is still undivided now?

[knell]

It`s irresponsible to trust science blindly.

Which is exactly what I've asked people not to do, and exactly what you've done, when you haven't been attacking the names rather than the research while putting forth your own that you clearly don't fully understand and haven't fact-checked.

You obviously didn't take the time to read my source either, let alone address any of the points listed within, you just got emotional as soon as you saw the sponsors. If you look at the conclusion, nowhere does it give the thumbs up to GM or anything of the sort, it simply restates the found data and says more research is needed. Monsanto is a business, they have done horrible things to farmers, but even they are weak in the knees when it comes to manipulating raw, publicly available data.

There are plenty of valid arguments against GM, and you have listed none of them aside from an inconclusive correlation to colony collapse (which is still not fully understood). Instead you're seeking refuge in an emotional response against a giant corporation while comparing geo-political differences. Grouping in the tireless efforts of bioengineers with the corporate practices isn't just unfair, it's ignorant and misleading. Reading a health assessment and drawing the conclusion that it will "probably cause a lot of shit later" is not conclusive and is certainly not the scientific consensus.

Again, you're attacking the politics, not the science, which is fine, but make sure you can distinguish between the two. If you want to bring up any finer points within your source we can chew them out individually, as it groups a lot of research under a single umbrella (and a variety of the sources go the "we don't know but we can know" route, or contradict the very point they're trying to make). I applaud you for actually providing a source though.

tl;dr - GM research and corporate malevolence are completely different ballgames.

ResponsibleTechnology.org makes their money by scaring scientifically ignorant people and selling DVDs, so of course they will pick and choose data and hope that you don't fact-check them. The key is to look at the data itself, not the people spouting it and certainly not their press releases. Here's a quote from one of the sources of your source (don't worry, no evil names behind this one, just EFSA):

Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) 'safety' margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. [. . .] The studies did not show any biologically relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals.

[Terpit]

I'm so glad iv'e never been in an argument with you knell