Anthracite: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "We have to recognize that North America is the only place in the world where genetic engineering is an accepted form of food production. In the European Union it's banned,"Banned in the EU? That's good enough for me.Bring on the Frankenfish!And we are overweight and they for the most part are not. Think it might have something to do with it?
ProfessorOhki: stirfrybry: YixilTesiphon: Slartibeerfest: understand the concern over genetically modified foodYou do? Because it seems like uninformed fear-mongering to me.Ever heard of systemic pesticides? Yeah, they're killing bees. Look it up, oh ignorant one.Just in case you need proof that pesticides affect bees.http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/honeybee.htmWait wait, are you trying to tell me that insecticides can kill insects? I am shocked... SHOCKED to learn this.What's that have to do with GMO one way or the other again?
pedalphile: "Put! Zee candle! Beck!"[picpost.postjung.com image 240x127]"He would have a tremendous schwanshtucker."/hot like a roll in the hay
whither_apophis: mgshamster: whither_apophis: Selective breeding != gene splicingDon't think so, huh? What's the difference, biochemically?oooh the "we all chemicals!" fifth grade rejoinder. But just to play along, if plants really needed the equivalent fish genes to survive they would have evolved them on their own./and in case you didn't notice, I'll repeat: go ahead and sell it, just let me know what I'm buying.//do you seek out GMO soy and corn? Will you only eat GMO salmon?
Ima4nic8or: Your hippy buddies or the liberal college professor who is telling you that could not be further off the mark.
Ima4nic8or: [The FDA] do often ask for additional testing that reveals no new information and results in no improvement in safety.
mgshamster: jjorsett: mgshamster: whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it./perfect knowledge ftwSure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products. In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.Thanks to California Prop 65 some years back, buildings everywhere are festooned with this sign:They might as well add the warning to the "Open" signs, that's how common it is. It's essentially become background noise, like Muzak only less useful.To be fair to the signs, there are a shiat ton of chemicals that do at least one of those three things. Of course, you have to have a sufficient dose, but that doesn't stop the interest groups and lawmakers from passing such a law./I've always been torn on the prop 65 labels; on one hand, they can be extremely useful, on the other, it's just background noise for so many of its applications.
Ima4nic8or: d23: It's hard to have any confidence in an organization that does NOTHING but what their big corporate buddies tell them to do.Disband them and start it again anew.Your hippy buddies or the liberal college professor who is telling you that could not be further off the mark. I have worked for three different medical device companies during the last 10 years or so and have had a small role in approximately half a dozen 510k and PMA submissions and half a dozen site audits. In general FDA auditors and reviewers are quite conservative. If anything they err on the side of caution.I wouldnt say they are grossly overly cautious but they do often ask for additional testing that reveals no new information and results in no improvement in safety. Unfortunately those requests do add to product costs. I am not suggesting they could do otherwise given their current knowledge. Since most of the reviewers do not really understand the products involved, or seemingly basic physics or material science, they have no choice but to take a conservative approach when they are in doubt. If you would really like to improve the effectiveness of the FDA this would be an area to do so.The idea that they are somehow bow down to whatever companies ask of them is laughable. Out of all the submission I have knowledge of (beyond actual involvment) I can only think of only one or two where FDA did not ask numerous questions or request additional testing. Similarly, the majority of auditors will not be satisfied until they find something to turn into an observation or at least a recommendation.
whither_apophis: Selective breeding != gene splicing./and if you really think it does you're more of the problem than the solution.
whither_apophis: 1) maybe I went to a better school2 tl:dr3) if you don't like labels, I have some cans of excellent beluga cabier to sell you, may or may not contain cavier. Caveat emptor.
BlaqueKatt: whither_apophis:Selective breeding != gene splicing./and if you really think it does you're more of the problem than the solution.Yes because it's not like "selective breeding" ever transferred things like toxins to potato plants while trying to transfer fungal resistance, thus making people deathly ill...oh waitIn conventional plant breeding, little attention has been paid to the possible impacts of new plant varieties on food safety or the environment. Conventional plant breeding and artificial selection can create gene combinations that would rarely survive in nature. In a few cases, such gene combinations have caused negative effects on human health. For example, a cultivated variety of potato was found to contain excessive levels of naturally occurring toxins.i's much safer to trasnfer a single known gene than to use "selective breeding" and face the law of unintended consequences. As one farker previously mentioned, Killer bees are a result of "selective breeding"Or are you actually claiming to know more about food safety than Joe Hotchkiss-professor of food science and toxicology at Cornell University,Remember, GMO or transgenic foods, MUST BE PROVEN SAFE-conventional crossbreeding, is 100% unregulated."Another example of the risks of traditional breeding is celery. Celery naturally contains a photoactive toxicant, that is, a chemical that becomes toxic when it hits sunlight. There was a case in California where a new variety of celery was bred that, unknown to the people who bred it, had high levels of this toxicant in it. It was planted. People went along, harvested this, and the workers who harvested this came out with a very severe skin rash. Why? Because it had the high level of toxicant resulting from the commercial, normal kind of breeding"And yes, I DO work in food safety(I'm a microbiologist)-what's your qualification?
whither_apophis: 3) if you don't like labels, I have some cans of excellent beluga cabier to sell you, may or may not contain cavier. Caveat emptor.
If you like these links, you'll love
Total accessTotal knowledgeTotal Fark
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 15 2017 03:33:05
Runtime: 0.343 sec (342 ms)