Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, genetically modified tomato, heart disease, tomatoes, atherosclerosis, bad cholesterol, peptides, oxidants  
•       •       •

841 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2012 at 5:12 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2012-11-06 10:46:50 AM  

Tellingthem: 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 mil ...


So Monsanto can't compete by selling non-GMO seeds? I have a hard time believing that. They are a huge company with an extensive, established sales, marketing and distribution network. As for the herbicides, again, the demand for cheap food is not going away any time soon.

As for the advertising...I've also heard the FUD from the No on 37 side, too. It's right there on the anti-Prop 37 website: "Increased costs to consumers. Arbitrary exemptions. Shakedown lawsuits. Conflicts with science." I've looked at both sides and formed my own conclusion. I assume you have, too, and your distaste for the tactics of the pro-Prop 37 side is overriding the actual issue. Or maybe you just don't care about eating GMOs. Fair enough: proponents have to make political calculations about their tactics and they obviously feel that this tactic is more likely to convince people to vote for their proposition than will be turned off by it. And you have the right to trust the FDA, which says that GMOs are safe to eat.

But I think the pro-Prop 37 ads are trying to communicate the fact that chemical companies behind GMOs were wrong about what's safe in the past, not that DDT and Agent Orange have anything to do with GMOs. Does it mean that they're wrong about GMOs? No. But I do think that, given the choice between a GMO tortilla chip and a non-GMO tortilla chip, I'd dip the latter in my non-GMO salsa. And that's all I want: the information I need to make that choice.
 
2012-11-06 10:49:08 AM  

Kinek: 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.


I'm sorry. I thought you were responding to what I wrote. You're looking for Mr. Strawman's posts.
 
2012-11-06 10:59:48 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Kinek: 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.

I'm sorry. I thought you were responding to what I wrote. You're looking for Mr. Strawman's posts.


My bad.

Additionally, a note about DDT and Agent orange. The ban on DDT has cost human lives. A lot of them. DDT was incredibly effective at reducing mosquito populations and was fairly non-toxic to humans. It's use in Africa would've saved millions from Malaria. That is not to say 'Fark the birds' but there's a balance to be struck and a lot of the time that side doesn't get told.

2,4-D, an herbicide, is one of the most prevalent herbicides in the world. And was half of agent Orange. Both 2,4 D and 2,4,5-D (The other half of agent orange) are low in toxicitiy. However in the manufacturing of 2,4,5- there used to be a contaminant that acts as a carcinogen. Agent orange itself, sans contaminant, is an effective, and rather safe herbicide. But the name Agent Orange brings up 'Nam, and basically ignores any science behind the effectiveness of these chemicals.
 
2012-11-06 01:41:52 PM  

Kinek: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Kinek: 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.

I'm sorry. I thought you were responding to what I wrote. You're looking for Mr. Strawman's posts.

My bad.

Additionally, a note about DDT and Agent orange. The ban on DDT has cost human lives. A lot of them. DDT was incredibly effective at reducing mosquito populations and was fairly non-toxic to humans. It's use in Africa would've saved millions from Malaria. That is not to say 'Fark the birds' but there's a balance to be struck and a lot of the time that side doesn't get told.

2,4-D, an herbicide, is one of the most prevalent herbicides in the world. And was half of agent Orange. Both 2,4 D and 2,4,5-D (The other half of agent orange) are low in toxicitiy. However in the manufacturing of 2,4,5- there used to be a contaminant that acts as a carcinogen. Agent orange itself, sans contaminant, is an effective, and rather safe herbicide. But the name Agent Orange brings up 'Nam, and basically ignores any science behind the effectiveness of these chemicals.


Well now, this I can respond to.

I'm not doubting the effectiveness of DDT on the mosquito population, and therefore, as a means of controlling malaria.

Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.

The National Geographic article listed as the source of that quote precedes it with, "The problem was overuse-not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their crops. The spray was so cheap that many times the necessary doses were sometimes applied. The insecticide accumulated in the soil and tainted watercourses. Though nontoxic to humans, DDT harmed peregrine falcons, sea lions, and salmon."

So, too much of a good thing perhaps?

The problems are that its half-life in the environment far outweigh its usefulness and that in order to control the mosquito population, you need to apply it regularly. I'm sure you can see how this would snowball, concentrate in apex predators, and eventually lead to more widespread ecological harm. (Consider what happens when apex predators are removed from an ecosystem.) Wikipedia does say that the use of DDT is still permitted in extreme cases, though not without controversy.

Agent Orange (besides being a kick-ass surf punk band in the 80's) also had its uses, but they were purely military. Of the two components in Agent Orange, 2,4-D is still widely used, but use of 2,4,5-T has been discontinued in the US

It's not clear to me whether or not the "accidental overheating" that causes TCDD to form during the 2,4,5-T manufacturing process can be avoided or if it's such a political hot potato that chemical manufacturers just decided that it just wasn't worth the trouble. But since TCDD is "commonly considered the most toxic man-made substance known," I can understand just scrapping the product. 

But, IMO, the ultimate question here is, "how much can humans shape the environment to suit their needs without invoking the law of unintended consequences?" I don't think there is any doubt that GMOs allow us to grow more food and feed more people, but what does that do to other ecological mechanisms? For instance, do we have enough clean water to support all of those people? DDT allows us to possibly eliminate malaria, which would save millions of lives. But then we'll have to increase our use of pesticides because key predators that normally would control the pest population will be extinct or severely threatened. And what will THAT do to our population? Circling back to TFA, okay, so a GMO tomato can reduce heart disease. So can eating more regular tomatoes and taking a farking walk every day. I know which one lazy, fat farks would prefer, but do we really want to encourage people to be lazy, fat farks?
 
2012-11-06 02:51:33 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Kinek: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Kinek: 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.

I'm sorry. I thought you were responding to what I wrote. You're looking for Mr. Strawman's posts.

My bad.

Additionally, a note about DDT and Agent orange. The ban on DDT has cost human lives. A lot of them. DDT was incredibly effective at reducing mosquito populations and was fairly non-toxic to humans. It's use in Africa would've saved millions from Malaria. That is not to say 'Fark the birds' but there's a balance to be struck and a lot of the time that side doesn't get told.

2,4-D, an herbicide, is one of the most prevalent herbicides in the world. And was half of agent Orange. Both 2,4 D and 2,4,5-D (The other half of agent orange) are low in toxicitiy. However in the manufacturing of 2,4,5- there used to be a contaminant that acts as a carcinogen. Agent orange itself, sans contaminant, is an effective, and rather safe herbicide. But the name Agent Orange brings up 'Nam, and basically ignores any science behind the effectiveness of these chemicals.

Well now, this I can respond to.

I'm not doubting the effectiveness of DDT on the mosquito population, and therefore, as a means of controlling malaria.

Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.

The National Geographic article listed as the source of that quote precedes it with, "The problem was overuse-not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their ...


I change my mind. I like you. Greened.

I would still say eating tomatoes -AND- taking a walk would be the best course. There is a disconnect here between Tech and Practice. I'm on the tech side of things, and so when I see awesome shiat being sidelined because people suck at Practice, It makes me want to break things. Pesticide overuse, herbicide overuse, these things do not invalidate the original technology.

It just means that people suck. Which is not news. It's for this reason of people sucking that I'm wary to trust people with knowledge that they have no way of understanding. Not you specifically. But if the laws of unintended consequences are in force wit GMOs, wouldn't we have seen them in -anywhere- but the Seraline reports? We've been eating GMOs for near twenty years now.
 
2012-11-06 05:00:58 PM  

Kinek: I change my mind. I like you. Greened.


Well, I consider that a win :-)

I would still say eating tomatoes -AND- taking a walk would be the best course. There is a disconnect here between Tech and Practice. I'm on the tech side of things, and so when I see awesome shiat being sidelined because people suck at Practice, It makes me want to break things. Pesticide overuse, herbicide overuse, these things do not invalidate the original technology.

I can understand how frustrating that can be. I work in advertising and nothing sucks worse (in my little world) than having a project you've been slaving away on for weeks get ruined by a superior or a client who doesn't share your vision. Having something you've dedicated years of your life to get derailed because people "are doing it wrong" probably sucks that much worse.

But since you can't count on people to do the right thing with pesticides and herbicides, you have only the "R-word" to fall back on (regulation). And we all know how unpopular that is these days.

It just means that people suck. Which is not news. It's for this reason of people sucking that I'm wary to trust people with knowledge that they have no way of understanding. Not you specifically. But if the laws of unintended consequences are in force wit GMOs, wouldn't we have seen them in -anywhere- but the Seraline reports? We've been eating GMOs for near twenty years now.

Well, considering the recent rise in diet-related illnesses, we may be seeing that law at work and just not know it yet.

I think what will happen if people start seeing "This product contains GMOs" is that most will not care. Some will care, but due to the difficulty obtaining foods that have no GMOs in them, will keep eating what they find at the supermarket. And a small fraction will want to change things, either by actively seeking out non-GMO foods (voting with their dollars) or by pressuring manufacturers to use non-GMO ingredients. The No-on-Prop-37 crowd is afraid of the latter, but I don't think they are likely to make much of a difference. The demand for cheap food is just too great. They will be thought of as a fringe group, like PeTA, but for fruits and vegetables. But labeling will allow people like me to make my own decisions.

I will confess right now that I won't even go more than 50% non-GMO; it's just too hard. But given the chance, I will modify my purchases. I've already stopped buying dairy products that come from cows that were given bovine growth hormones and when I think it is important, will choose the grass-fed/free-range meats and organic fruits and vegetables. Not because I'm scared of the labels and implications I don't understand. But because why not? I like supporting local farmers and occasionally deal with a bug or two in my produce. The only reason not to try to change your eating habits is cost and, thankfully, I can afford the surcharge.

Thanks for engaging in a thoughtful discussion! Every now and then, I learn a LOT from Farkers :-)
 
Displayed 56 of 56 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report