My Kitchen Is Not Your Lab

[The Crusader]

what do you think?

http://mykitchenisnotyourlab.com/

[FingeringAm]

learned about this is school a while ago - i think id be great if the greedy idiots would use it to feed the hungry - it did however make a crop of rice in asia far more nutritious and helped the area greatly

but i think the whole putting fish genes in tomatoes is just bull s***
hey mabe thats y were gettin SALMONella

[Pilgrim]

The flap about genetic manipulation is much ado about nothing.

If we were what we ate, I'd be a cow because of all the beef I eat.

I worked with researchers in the 80's who were splicing genes from animals into wheat plants to make them resistant to certain diseases. How far do you think we've come since then? In order to assure a global food supply, we need genetic research and splicing to continue. After 28 years at research universities and having had conversations about this with many eminent researchers (and one Nobel Prize recipient), I am not concerned about genetic manipulation negatively affecting our food supply.

And what do you think Gregor Mendel was doing? He was the first to make genetic selections in plants (and insects) in the late 1800's. It's not much different; Mendel was selecting from the existing gene pool AND any mutations that occurred within that gene pool. Today's researchers are mapping genes from one organism to another and swapping them between the two. Is that very different from waiting for genetic mutations to occur in one species and selecting for that mutation?

[Atoz]

Granola hysteria.

[Croox]

I really don't care how my hamburger came to be, as long as its made of meat.

[thesteve]

+1 Pilgrim. This is nothing new, the only difference is that these modifications are now being done with awareness at a genetic level rather than at a phenotypic level as was done by Mendel and those that followed him.

There are some things that I am concerned about, such are hormone injected chicken and what not, but often the people against scientific food manipulation throw out the baby with the bathwater when they try to stop all crop manipulation.

[Human Bass]

China and India have to feed their population, genetically modified food is more productive, consequently cheaper. No turn back.

[Jazz Ad]

Unfortunately, this is not the case at all.
Genetically modified plants reveal less efficient and less productive than local species absolutely everywhere. They also cost a lot more to peasants, these species are sterile so they can't re-use seeds, they don't grow properly without pesticides bought from seed makers and they burn a lot more energy because seeds have to be brought from factories every year instead of being saved and grown locally.
It would be good not to mix issues. Research is great, there are incredible potential benefits to certain application but barely any has been put on the market. What we get so far are useless, highly polluting species.
Seedmakers aren't honest about what they do.
The technique is interesting but so far it is nothing but a 1st world toy and moneymaker, a way to enslave populations and put them even more into debt.

[hbarcat]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

Seedmakers aren't honest about what they do.
The technique is interesting but so far it is nothing but a 1st world toy and moneymaker, a way to enslave populations and put them even more into debt.

[The Crusader]

Originally Posted by hbarcat

[Jazz Ad]

Take BT Cotton for example.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/i...tton012406.cfm
Why is that and how did it happen ? Well, BT Cotton was conceived to solve problems for regions where pesticides and chemicals already ruined most of the local biotope, mostly USA. It worked well.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_cotton.html
The issue for Monsanto is that the areas where it could be used were too small to warrant good marging, so they forced it on 3rd world and emerging countries, sometimes in a less than glorious way.
http://gaia.org.pt/node/2706
It happens that wisely using local species is much more efficient and results in better quality at a cheaper cost.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Pes...ests1mar05.htm

[Jazz Ad]

Oh and for a good laugh (with a slight grin) look for golden rice, what's it's all about and how it is presented by seed producers.

[SMASH]

IMO it's only a matter of time until this gets out of control and unbalances a significant part of "the", or "an", ecosystem. It's human nature - we never stop at "good enough".

Whether it leads to massive crop failures/mutation, human intolerances or mutations, or superbugs, or all of the above, then a spiralling and unaffordable series of "solutions", eventually it'll lead to widespread inconvenience, discomfort, and/or death.

The human race needs some weeding out, if you just look at the sheer numbers, so maybe that's just Nature's way or a perverse "bright side", but things do and will go out of control once scientists start to play God and people en-masse start gobbling their experiments with nowhere near enough testing or forethought.

It all starts benevolently enough - like antibiotics and ADD diagnoses/medication - but pretty soon too many people are hooked, at a great cost economically and socially ... unless you're one of the sanctioned pushers in which case "it'$ all good" and the user/society is left to deal with the Frankenstein monkey on its back.

"If you are what you eat, I'd be a cow because I eat beef". That's some extremely simple-minded stuff. Is it truly the depth of your critical thinking capacity or an attempt at balance? I guess following that line of "thinking", chemo patients aren't harmed because they don't turn into radiation machines? Or maybe smokers aren't harmed, or stinking and yellow, because they don't actually turn into a giant cigarette with arms & legs? And of course the problem with drinking bleach isn't that you'll die, it's just that you'll turn into a big plastic bleach container which is harmless enough but makes it awkward to find clothes that fit. Right. Uh ... huh ... huh-huh, huh.

[dlloyd]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

Unfortunately, this is not the case at all.
Genetically modified plants reveal less efficient and less productive than local species absolutely everywhere. They also cost a lot more to peasants, these species are sterile so they can't re-use seeds, they don't grow properly without pesticides bought from seed makers and they burn a lot more energy because seeds have to be brought from factories every year instead of being saved and grown locally.

Utter nonsense.

Seed sterility only exists if it is engineered into the crop. We have GM crops that are not seed sterile.

Herbicide reisistant crops like 'Roundup Ready tomatoes' grow just as well as any other similar non-GM crop without herbicides.

[Philbiker]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

And what do you think Gregor Mendel was doing? He was the first to make genetic selections in plants (and insects) in the late 1800's. It's not much different; Mendel was selecting from the existing gene pool AND any mutations that occurred within that gene pool. Today's researchers are mapping genes from one organism to another and swapping them between the two. Is that very different from waiting for genetic mutations to occur in one species and selecting for that mutation?

Yes. Deliberatly engineering a corn that produces pesticieds on the molecular level and using Mendel's methods are completely different. There is no comparison.

[Philbiker]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

Take BT Cotton for example.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/i...tton012406.cfm
Why is that and how did it happen ? Well, BT Cotton was conceived to solve problems for regions where pesticides and chemicals already ruined most of the local biotope, mostly USA. It worked well.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_cotton.html
The issue for Monsanto is that the areas where it could be used were too small to warrant good marging, so they forced it on 3rd world and emerging countries, sometimes in a less than glorious way.
http://gaia.org.pt/node/2706
It happens that wisely using local species is much more efficient and results in better quality at a cheaper cost.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Pes...ests1mar05.htm

+100

Modern GMO crops are not the devil but they're not even close to what made out to be by the manufacturers and the hype either.

And they are not tested or labelled (in the USA), the manufacturers get a free pass to distribute them at will for the most part.

Interesting reading http://www.thecampaign.org/ .

Google Arpad Pusztai see what comes up.