If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Genetically modified tomatoes could save people from heart disease one day...as long as they don't attack and kill us all first   (io9.com) divider line 56
    More: Interesting, genetically modified tomato, heart disease, tomatoes, atherosclerosis, bad cholesterol, peptides, oxidants  
•       •       •

833 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2012 at 5:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-05 02:55:03 PM
profile.ak.fbcdn.net

/obscure?
 
2012-11-05 02:58:44 PM
Great movie. You know, if you've had a LOT to drink.
 
2012-11-05 03:00:46 PM
I do not like the men on this spaceship. They are uncouth and fail to appreciate my better qualities. I have something of value to contribute to this mission if they would only recognize it.
 
2012-11-05 03:22:33 PM
There's also a purple tomato that uses genes taken from snapdragon plants. Aside from turning it purple it increases the anti-oxidant levels rather substantially. In lab mice prone to cancer it has shown to be very effective in delaying cancer considerably.

THAT is what I want to see out of GMO crops. Well, and this stuff. Fixing corn up so that you can spray RoundUp all over it? Uh, no.
 
2012-11-05 04:10:59 PM
"Puuuuberty looove..."
 
2012-11-05 04:38:10 PM
Shiat I'm going to have that movie's theme song in my head all night.

Thanks a lot subby.
 
2012-11-05 04:51:03 PM
www.penelopeironstone.com
 
2012-11-05 05:14:14 PM

jbuist: There's also a purple tomato that uses genes taken from snapdragon plants. Aside from turning it purple it increases the anti-oxidant levels rather substantially. In lab mice prone to cancer it has shown to be very effective in delaying cancer considerably.

THAT is what I want to see out of GMO crops. Well, and this stuff. Fixing corn up so that you can spray RoundUp all over it? Uh, no.


Since around 15,000 B.C. that's kind of been the whole point of crop husbandry, bonehead.
 
2012-11-05 05:22:54 PM

Diogenes: [www.penelopeironstone.com image 180x287]


MMMMM Tomaco

/loves me some fresh off the vine tomaters
 
2012-11-05 05:23:26 PM
eightiesmovies.files.wordpress.com

/Hardly obscure
 
2012-11-05 05:32:49 PM
Pass the ketchup!
 
2012-11-05 05:46:52 PM

Diogenes:


Came here for this. Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-11-05 05:47:39 PM

markie_farkie: [profile.ak.fbcdn.net image 187x200]

/obscure?


No, wrong movie.
 
2012-11-05 05:50:26 PM
No subby, even if they attack and kill us all first, we won't have heart disease. Well, unless you consider "dead" a disease.
 
2012-11-05 05:51:03 PM

markie_farkie: /obscure?


No. And tell Pinback it's time to feed it again.

Ambivalence: Shiat I'm going to have that movie's theme song in my head all night.


Same here.
 
2012-11-05 05:58:17 PM

natazha: No, wrong movie.


I went beyond Killer Tomatoes since that was easily telegraphed in the headline.

Dark Star is obviously much more obscure around here than I had imagined.
 
2012-11-05 06:12:25 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-05 06:30:18 PM

DundieAwardWinner: [eightiesmovies.files.wordpress.com image 288x450]

/Hardly obscure


DO WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FINISH THIS TURKEY YET???
 
2012-11-05 06:45:09 PM

jbuist: There's also a purple tomato that uses genes taken from snapdragon plants. Aside from turning it purple it increases the anti-oxidant levels rather substantially. In lab mice prone to cancer it has shown to be very effective in delaying cancer considerably.

THAT is what I want to see out of GMO crops. Well, and this stuff. Fixing corn up so that you can spray RoundUp all over it? Uh, no.


Cornell, if I can remember right, was all over this shiat in peppers because anti-oxidants are easy to detect. (Is it a weird dark color? Probably anti-oxidant rich.) Problem was that their funding was being cut because fark you crop science. Not like we need to eat or anything.
 
2012-11-05 06:46:30 PM

jbuist: There's also a purple tomato that uses genes taken from snapdragon plants. Aside from turning it purple it increases the anti-oxidant levels rather substantially. In lab mice prone to cancer it has shown to be very effective in delaying cancer considerably.

THAT is what I want to see out of GMO crops. Well, and this stuff. Fixing corn up so that you can spray RoundUp all over it? Uh, no.


Nevermind the weeds are breeding into superweeds that say fark you to RoundUp now. We'll end up having to make weed robots to mechanically remove them.
 
2012-11-05 07:00:15 PM

Crid:


Not bad but we need a better angled pic of her tomatoes.
 
2012-11-05 07:08:25 PM
giant tomatoes mean bigger pizzas
 
2012-11-05 07:34:47 PM
Didn't the Simpsons already cover this?
 
2012-11-05 07:53:36 PM
I used to live in Milpitas, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.


/smellpitas
 
2012-11-05 08:30:03 PM
First sentence of the article: A tomato genetically modified to produce a certain peptide has managed to do a pretty good job of lower plaque build up in the arteries of mice - so one day, you could help your heart simply popping down some produce.

You can do that now.

Last sentence of the article: If nothing else, most of us should be eating more vegetables anyway.

The author obviously got his Journalism degree at the prestigious NSSU.
 
2012-11-05 08:32:38 PM

Hots_Kebabs: giant tomatoes mean bigger pizzas


And more pizza sauce!
 
2012-11-05 08:40:35 PM

Jedekai: jbuist: There's also a purple tomato that uses genes taken from snapdragon plants. Aside from turning it purple it increases the anti-oxidant levels rather substantially. In lab mice prone to cancer it has shown to be very effective in delaying cancer considerably.

THAT is what I want to see out of GMO crops. Well, and this stuff. Fixing corn up so that you can spray RoundUp all over it? Uh, no.

Since around 15,000 B.C. that's kind of been the whole point of crop husbandry, bonehead.


Wow, I had no idea Roundup® was around that long!

Seriously, if it can be patented, it should be labeled a GMO. If it was created through generations of painstaking cross-pollination or breeding, I'm okay with that being sold as "natural" even if humans were integral to its existence. If you have a reliable source that says crops were hybridized (or whatever the correct biology term is) to be more resistant to an herbicide since agriculture was invented, I'd like to see it. Bug-resistance? Sure. Able to tolerate non-native climates? Okay. But herbicides? I'm skeptical about that.
 
2012-11-05 08:44:56 PM
I'm worried about genetically modified tomatoes because no one ever counts to tomato.
 
2012-11-05 08:54:11 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Jedekai: jbuist: There's also a purple tomato that uses genes taken from snapdragon plants. Aside from turning it purple it increases the anti-oxidant levels rather substantially. In lab mice prone to cancer it has shown to be very effective in delaying cancer considerably.

THAT is what I want to see out of GMO crops. Well, and this stuff. Fixing corn up so that you can spray RoundUp all over it? Uh, no.

Since around 15,000 B.C. that's kind of been the whole point of crop husbandry, bonehead.

Wow, I had no idea Roundup® was around that long!

Seriously, if it can be patented, it should be labeled a GMO. If it was created through generations of painstaking cross-pollination or breeding, I'm okay with that being sold as "natural" even if humans were integral to its existence. If you have a reliable source that says crops were hybridized (or whatever the correct biology term is) to be more resistant to an herbicide since agriculture was invented, I'd like to see it. Bug-resistance? Sure. Able to tolerate non-native climates? Okay. But herbicides? I'm skeptical about that.


So, under your definition, technically the weeds are organic because we just selected for resistance. This is Ironic. Well. I'll eat the GMO crop, and you can eat the organic weed.
 
2012-11-05 09:29:30 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Seriously, if it can be patented, it should be labeled a GMO. If it was created through generations of painstaking cross-pollination or breeding, I'm okay with that being sold as "natural" even if humans were integral to its existence.


These two sentences put together like that don't make sense to me. Either I'm having a dumb moment or you don't understand how plant patents work.

You can patent naturally bred varieties of plants. Happens all the time. The Honeycrisp apple was patented (recently fell off), the SweeTango is a new one under patent. There are varieties non food plants like Dipladenia, Coleus, Impatiens, Calibrachoa, Petunia, etc. under patent. They're basically everywhere.

I'm not sure if your statement means we should label these "natural GMO" and patented or if maybe they shouldn't be patented.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just honestly confused by what you meant.
 
2012-11-05 09:31:53 PM

Kinek: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Jedekai: jbuist: There's also a purple tomato that uses genes taken from snapdragon plants. Aside from turning it purple it increases the anti-oxidant levels rather substantially. In lab mice prone to cancer it has shown to be very effective in delaying cancer considerably.

THAT is what I want to see out of GMO crops. Well, and this stuff. Fixing corn up so that you can spray RoundUp all over it? Uh, no.

Since around 15,000 B.C. that's kind of been the whole point of crop husbandry, bonehead.

Wow, I had no idea Roundup® was around that long!

Seriously, if it can be patented, it should be labeled a GMO. If it was created through generations of painstaking cross-pollination or breeding, I'm okay with that being sold as "natural" even if humans were integral to its existence. If you have a reliable source that says crops were hybridized (or whatever the correct biology term is) to be more resistant to an herbicide since agriculture was invented, I'd like to see it. Bug-resistance? Sure. Able to tolerate non-native climates? Okay. But herbicides? I'm skeptical about that.

So, under your definition, technically the weeds are organic because we just selected for resistance. This is Ironic. Well. I'll eat the GMO crop, and you can eat the organic weed.


I'm sorry, but if you want to discuss this, you're going to have to explain:

1. What weeds have to do with anything I posted.
2. What organic has to do with anything I posted.
3. What eating weeds has to do with anything I posted.

Good luck.

FWIW, I'm not suggesting that anyone ban GMO foods. I just want to know what's in the food I'm eating so I can decide. GMO foods have a certain value in that they are cheaper in the short run. But if Monsanto et al are so sure they're safe in the long run, why not label them as GMO?
 
2012-11-05 09:52:39 PM
This is another argument for the labeling of GMO foods. What good is a tomato that helps fight heart disease if you can't tell people it's been engineered as such.
 
2012-11-05 09:55:48 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: GMO foods have a certain value in that they are cheaper in the short run. But if Monsanto et al are so sure they're safe in the long run, why not label them as GMO?


If we did label them all we'd do is alter the label of everything that contains corn, soy, rapeseed (canola oil), and cotton (but we don't eat that) to say that it contained GMO materials. These staples are not segregated on the market. People grow them, sell them in bulk, and they all get mashedo in together. Very little of these crops are non-GMO now. I think corn is the lagging one, with "only" 8GMO foods have a certain value in that they are cheaper in the short run. But if Monsanto et al are so sure they're safe in the long run, why not label them as GMO?5% of the crops in the US being a GMO.

It'd sorta be like how California requires you to label a building if it contains carcinogens. Every building has the label. It's pointless.

The only people that COULD label their stuff as non-GMO would be local farmers selling actual ears of corn at a market. Or a supermarket if they sourced it properly, but sweet corn intended for human consumption only comprises 1% of all planted corn in the US.
 
2012-11-05 09:57:38 PM
SCP 504 would like a word with you.
 
2012-11-05 09:58:04 PM

jbuist: I think corn is the lagging one, with "only" 8GMO foods have a certain value in that they are cheaper in the short run. But if Monsanto et al are so sure they're safe in the long run, why not label them as GMO?5% of the crops in the US being a GMO.


Sorry, buggered that up. Wife was talking to me, plus I've had a couple beers. It should read:

I think corn is the lagging one, with "only" 85% of the crops in the US being a GMO.
 
2012-11-05 10:00:21 PM

jbuist: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Seriously, if it can be patented, it should be labeled a GMO. If it was created through generations of painstaking cross-pollination or breeding, I'm okay with that being sold as "natural" even if humans were integral to its existence.

These two sentences put together like that don't make sense to me. Either I'm having a dumb moment or you don't understand how plant patents work.

You can patent naturally bred varieties of plants. Happens all the time. The Honeycrisp apple was patented (recently fell off), the SweeTango is a new one under patent. There are varieties non food plants like Dipladenia, Coleus, Impatiens, Calibrachoa, Petunia, etc. under patent. They're basically everywhere.

I'm not sure if your statement means we should label these "natural GMO" and patented or if maybe they shouldn't be patented.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just honestly confused by what you meant.


That's news to me :-) And very interesting!

I just wiki'd Honeycrisp and what I find most interesting about that is that the originators blew it. They thought it was the result of a cross between "the apple cultivars Macoun and Honeygold." But genetic fingerprinting "determined that neither of these cultivars is a parent of the Honeycrisp...." So the University of MN was able to patent something but had no idea how it was created.

To me, and Wikipedia, "GMO" means "A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques." Following the thread of what constitutes genetic engineering, it says, "Genetic engineering alters the genetic makeup of an organism using techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host."

So, since there was no direct modification of the honeycrisp's genome, simply hybridization (from one known and one unknown source), I wouldn't count a honeycrisp, or any other patentable organism created through hybridization, as a GMO of any kind. My original definition was too broad, but thanks to your input, I think it's back where it belongs: if a food organism has been genetically modified through direct manipulation of its genome, it should be labeled GMO.

And again, I don't think GMO stuff should be banned, just labeled. 

/ loves me some honeycrisp apples and has some at home right now
 
2012-11-05 10:06:00 PM
Liberals to protest science in 3, 2...
 
2012-11-05 10:10:25 PM

jbuist: The only people that COULD label their stuff as non-GMO would be local farmers selling actual ears of corn at a market. Or a supermarket if they sourced it properly, but sweet corn intended for human consumption only comprises 1% of all planted corn in the US.


I'm down with that. Just because it's hard to avoid doesn't mean it should be swept under the rug. I already know that most canola oils are from GMO crops. But I had to do some research on it to find that out. I use it anyway, because I don't know of another "healthy" oil that has a high smoke point and a light flavor. But if I found one that wasn't GMO, I'd probably buy that instead.
 
2012-11-05 10:18:55 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I just wiki'd Honeycrisp and what I find most interesting about that is that the originators blew it. They thought it was the result of a cross between "the apple cultivars Macoun and Honeygold." But genetic fingerprinting "determined that neither of these cultivars is a parent of the Honeycrisp...." So the University of MN was able to patent something but had no idea how it was created.


Yep. That's a frequent source of amusement for me. Even the popular kid doesn't know who is daddy is. Or his mommy. They just can't figure it out. If you keep digging around apple patents you'll see stuff like one of the parents being "Tree 153 on row 58" -- most of them don't even get a name. They're just random sperm donors.

Apple genetics (if not all of food production genetics) are kinda fun. Take Jonagold for example. I think that was a cross between Honeygold and Jonathan, but I could be wrong. Tastes similar to a Honeycrisp. Anyway, durned thing is a triploid so it has three sets of every chromosome where apples are naturally diploids. So it's sterile and won't pollinate anything else. Requires two other pollinators for it to make apples and they have to be different varieties. Basically the thing won't make babies (apples) unless it gets gang banged. It's the whore of the apple world.
 
2012-11-05 10:33:36 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I'm down with that. Just because it's hard to avoid doesn't mean it should be swept under the rug. I already know that most canola oils are from GMO crops. But I had to do some research on it to find that out. I use it anyway, because I don't know of another "healthy" oil that has a high smoke point and a light flavor. But if I found one that wasn't GMO, I'd probably buy that instead.


Ah, but what puts you off from GMOs? Take corn. You've got basically two big things that GMO has brought to it. One is "RoundUp Ready" which I detest, but then you've got the "BT" corn which emits an organic pesticide similar to what "Bacillus thuringiensis" produces. One I like, the other I don't.

If you just slap GMO on it there's no point in the label. At least, to me.

And you could try putting every variety of corn that could have possibly ended up in the mix on the label but now we're looking at, oh, I think I've got 200 varieties of corn in my seed catalog and that doesn't even have GMO stuff in there.
 
2012-11-05 10:59:04 PM

jbuist: It's the whore of the apple world.


See? This is useful information. I don't want to put that dirty, dirty whore in my mouth! LOL

jbuist: Ah, but what puts you off from GMOs? Take corn. You've got basically two big things that GMO has brought to it. One is "RoundUp Ready" which I detest, but then you've got the "BT" corn which emits an organic pesticide similar to what "Bacillus thuringiensis" produces. One I like, the other I don't.

If you just slap GMO on it there's no point in the label. At least, to me.


I think they're both less desirable than a non-GMO corn grown without (or with less) herbicides. What is the purpose of "Roundup Ready" GMOs? Isn't it so the farmers can use more herbicides without killing the cash crop?

Now, does this lower the cost of food? I think it does. And I think people should be able to make informed choices and "vote with their dollars." With no information, you're getting stuff even you say you don't want whether you like it or not.

And you could try putting every variety of corn that could have possibly ended up in the mix on the label but now we're looking at, oh, I think I've got 200 varieties of corn in my seed catalog and that doesn't even have GMO stuff in there.

If you've got 200 varieties of corn in your seed catalog, I feel bad for you, son. I got 99 problems, but GMO labeling ain't one ;-)

But seriously, all you have to do is track the GMO ones. If one is in the mix, the final product gets a GMO label. I'm sure the patent-holders know what GMO seeds they've sold you, right? It's not like you can keep some and grow next year's crop with them without facing a potential lawsuit.
 
2012-11-05 11:13:38 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-05 11:20:21 PM

jbuist: You've got basically two big things that GMO has brought to it. One is "RoundUp Ready" which I detest, but then you've got the "BT" corn which emits an organic pesticide similar to what "Bacillus thuringiensis" produces. One I like, the other I don't.


Would it simplify things if I pointed out that insects are now evolving BT resistance thanks to this corn?

If you just slap GMO on it there's no point in the label. At least, to me.

I agree here. There's no benefit unless the label explains the modification and its consequences.
 
2012-11-05 11:47:04 PM

Ivo Shandor: jbuist: You've got basically two big things that GMO has brought to it. One is "RoundUp Ready" which I detest, but then you've got the "BT" corn which emits an organic pesticide similar to what "Bacillus thuringiensis" produces. One I like, the other I don't.

Would it simplify things if I pointed out that insects are now evolving BT resistance thanks to this corn?

If you just slap GMO on it there's no point in the label. At least, to me.

I agree here. There's no benefit unless the label explains the modification and its consequences.


Mitch Taylor's Bro: jbuist: It's the whore of the apple world.

See? This is useful information. I don't want to put that dirty, dirty whore in my mouth! LOL

jbuist: Ah, but what puts you off from GMOs? Take corn. You've got basically two big things that GMO has brought to it. One is "RoundUp Ready" which I detest, but then you've got the "BT" corn which emits an organic pesticide similar to what "Bacillus thuringiensis" produces. One I like, the other I don't.

If you just slap GMO on it there's no point in the label. At least, to me.

I think they're both less desirable than a non-GMO corn grown without (or with less) herbicides. What is the purpose of "Roundup Ready" GMOs? Isn't it so the farmers can use more herbicides without killing the cash crop?

Now, does this lower the cost of food? I think it does. And I think people should be able to make informed choices and "vote with their dollars." With no information, you're getting stuff even you say you don't want whether you like it or not.

And you could try putting every variety of corn that could have possibly ended up in the mix on the label but now we're looking at, oh, I think I've got 200 varieties of corn in my seed catalog and that doesn't even have GMO stuff in there.

If you've got 200 varieties of corn in your seed catalog, I feel bad for you, son. I got 99 problems, but GMO labeling ain't one ;-)

But seriously, all you have to do is track the GMO ones. If one is in the mix, the final product gets a GMO label. I'm sure the patent-holders know what GMO seeds they've sold you, right? It's not like you can keep some and grow next year's crop with them without facing a potential lawsuit.


think of it this way. Is this law actually for consumer benefit? Or more of people wanting to punish corporations like Mansanto? To try and scare people into not buying certain products in favor of their own.

How about if we decided to label anything grown using any pesticides or fungicides (regular or organic). It would be the same thing right? It would be easy to track and to avoid a lawsuit all you would have to do is put a label on it. I'm sure the people pushing for the GMO label would be all for that. Because the consumers have a right to know and make their own informed choices right?
 
2012-11-05 11:49:07 PM
If you were eating more tomatoes and less hamburger you wouldn't have heat disease...the people who don't eat enough veggies won't start now.
 
2012-11-06 12:46:51 AM

markie_farkie: natazha: No, wrong movie.

I went beyond Killer Tomatoes since that was easily telegraphed in the headline.

Dark Star is obviously much more obscure around here than I had imagined.


I knew right away but only just got here myself, like Goose.
 
2012-11-06 01:33:39 AM

MyRandomName: Liberals to protest science in 3, 2...


Yeah because we all know how much conservatives embrace science.
 
2012-11-06 02:02:30 AM

Tellingthem: think of it this way. Is this law actually for consumer benefit? Or more of people wanting to punish corporations like Mansanto? To try and scare people into not buying certain products in favor of their own.


I think it's for consumer benefit. You are free to disagree, but how does it hurt Monsanto? They make seeds and herbicide. Farmers have little choice but to buy them. It's not like you can get certified organic overnight. And corporate farms will still buy them because they allow them to produce more cash crops per acre.

How about if we decided to label anything grown using any pesticides or fungicides (regular or organic). It would be the same thing right? It would be easy to track and to avoid a lawsuit all you would have to do is put a label on it. I'm sure the people pushing for the GMO label would be all for that. Because the consumers have a right to know and make their own informed choices right?

Yes, I want to know all of that stuff. Maybe someday we'll all have Star Trek tricorders so we can just wave a sensor over the food we eat and know what's in it. Until then, labels will have to do.
 
2012-11-06 03:55:58 AM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Tellingthem: think of it this way. Is this law actually for consumer benefit? Or more of people wanting to punish corporations like Mansanto? To try and scare people into not buying certain products in favor of their own.

I think it's for consumer benefit. You are free to disagree, but how does it hurt Monsanto? They make seeds and herbicide. Farmers have little choice but to buy them. It's not like you can get certified organic overnight. And corporate farms will still buy them because they allow them to produce more cash crops per acre.

How about if we decided to label anything grown using any pesticides or fungicides (regular or organic). It would be the same thing right? It would be easy to track and to avoid a lawsuit all you would have to do is put a label on it. I'm sure the people pushing for the GMO label would be all for that. Because the consumers have a right to know and make their own informed choices right?

Yes, I want to know all of that stuff. Maybe someday we'll all have Star Trek tricorders so we can just wave a sensor over the food we eat and know what's in it. Until then, labels will have to do.


Basically if they can scare people enough into not buying anything with that label on it the manufacturers will be forced to buy from other suppliers not using GMO seed, or at the very least expand product offerings into that direction. (might be a bit conspiracy theorist on my part but I always think about who will directly profit off of the proposition here in California and in this case it would seem to be the "alternative" industry)

I'm actually all for knowledge but for the right reasons. I do not believe that the motives behind this are for actual education. Because of stuff like this blatant fear-mongering on their website.Link

"This is the important story behind Proposition 37's first television ad: The Same Companies that Told Us DDT and Agent Orange were Safe."

"Monsanto, the top contributor to No on 37 with $4.2 million in donations, was a primary manufacturer of Agent Orange, as was Dow Chemical, which has contributed $1.2 million to No on 37. Agent Orange was the code name for herbicides used by the U.S. Military during the Vietnam War. U.S. soldiers were told that it was "perfectly safe" and often wore little protective clothing when applying it, as shown in our ad. Agent Orange is now linked with various types of cancer and other diseases."

DuPont, the second largest funder of No on 37 with just over $4 million in contributions, was the first major manufacturer of DDT, which was marketed as "harmless to humans" but has since been linked to breast cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders and other hazards to human health.

Tobacco industry operatives are key players in the No on 37 Campaign No on 37 consultants MB Public Affairs worked for Altria (formerly Phillip Morris Companies, Inc.).

Hiltachk is the treasurer of the No on Prop 37 campaign, was the architect of efforts to dismantle California's global warming law, and is author of the union-busting Prop 32 on the November ballot which LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik described as the "fraud to end all frauds" 

also using blatant out of context quotes. from the website: "The Food and Drug Administration has said "providing more information to consumers about bioengineered foods would be useful."

From the FDA: "The agency received more than 50,000 written comments about its policy regarding safety and labeling of bioengineered foods. The theme related to labeling in those comments and the testimony at the meetings was that there are very strongly held but divergent views as to whether bioengineered foods should be required to bear special labeling. However, there was general agreement that providing more information to consumers about bioengineered foods would be useful. A number of comments supported the need for guidance from FDA regarding appropriate ways that industry could voluntarily provide information on a food label about bioengineering."

I could go on and on. But basically they are trying to associate DDT and Agent Orange with GMO crops. Dramatically edit quotes to make it appear that the FDA is supporting this. Use as much misinformation as they can to push for a law that is supposed to be about information. I actually find it sad that this is the crap we have to put up with.
 
2012-11-06 08:27:10 AM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Kinek: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Jedekai: jbuist: There's also a purple tomato that uses genes taken from snapdragon plants. Aside from turning it purple it increases the anti-oxidant levels rather substantially. In lab mice prone to cancer it has shown to be very effective in delaying cancer considerably.

THAT is what I want to see out of GMO crops. Well, and this stuff. Fixing corn up so that you can spray RoundUp all over it? Uh, no.

Since around 15,000 B.C. that's kind of been the whole point of crop husbandry, bonehead.

Wow, I had no idea Roundup® was around that long!

Seriously, if it can be patented, it should be labeled a GMO. If it was created through generations of painstaking cross-pollination or breeding, I'm okay with that being sold as "natural" even if humans were integral to its existence. If you have a reliable source that says crops were hybridized (or whatever the correct biology term is) to be more resistant to an herbicide since agriculture was invented, I'd like to see it. Bug-resistance? Sure. Able to tolerate non-native climates? Okay. But herbicides? I'm skeptical about that.

So, under your definition, technically the weeds are organic because we just selected for resistance. This is Ironic. Well. I'll eat the GMO crop, and you can eat the organic weed.

I'm sorry, but if you want to discuss this, you're going to have to explain:

1. What weeds have to do with anything I posted.
2. What organic has to do with anything I posted.
3. What eating weeds has to do with anything I posted.

Good luck.

FWIW, I'm not suggesting that anyone ban GMO foods. I just want to know what's in the food I'm eating so I can decide. GMO foods have a certain value in that they are cheaper in the short run. But if Monsanto et al are so sure they're safe in the long run, why not label them as GMO?


Because the usual argument about Roundup is that it selects for Roundup resistant 'Superweeds'. It wouldn't if farmers actually listened to crop manangement people about BPA, but that's neither here nor there. The weeds have not had any genes inserted, by your silly, arbitrary and backarseword definition, and are organic. The roundup ready crop is not. That's the joke. The weeds are organic, and the things you'd actually eat, you've decided to discriminate against simply because of the method used to create them.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report