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.

(Independent Science News)   Undiscovered viral gene accidentally encoded in GM crops may have serious health impacts on humans, including RNA malformations that could turn us all in to purple-skinned tentacle-sporting, winged lizard people   (independentsciencenews.org) divider line 122
    More: Scary, RNA, GM crops, European Food Safety Authority, gmos, impacts, mRNA, base pairs, gene accidentally  
•       •       •

7558 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 4:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-22 09:15:26 PM
or, give some of us super powers. i want to be invisible, or be able to fly. eat up, everyone. there is only one way to be sure.
 
2013-01-22 09:26:13 PM
purple-skinned tentacle-sporting, winged lizard people

Purple? Screw that, I am going to have an awesome yellow/black checkerboard pattern.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-22 09:27:47 PM

some_beer_drinker: or, give some of us super powers. i want to be invisible, or be able to fly. eat up, everyone. there is only one way to be sure.


Oops, sorry you get cancer...
 
2013-01-22 09:27:59 PM
Where's the downside here?
 
2013-01-22 09:28:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Where's the downside here?


Four hour lifespan?
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-22 09:30:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Where's the downside here?


God only knows.  It could be a massive cancer epidemic 14 years after exposure.  Or blindness, or virtually anything, or nothing.
 
2013-01-22 09:32:29 PM
Genetically antagonistic corn. Really?
 
2013-01-22 09:52:08 PM
I was going to say this seems legit, but someone actually might have done some work here.  I have no way of knowing if those sources are worth anything though.

So I'll settle for bring on the blister rust.
 
2013-01-22 09:59:16 PM

Kaydub: Genetically antagonistic corn. Really?


You mean making our crops poisonous was a bad idea?
 
2013-01-22 10:39:14 PM
Isn't this why the FDA and all the regulators should be abolished--so the companies can police themselves?
I mean, they would never let something like this occur If left to their own, right?Right?
 
2013-01-22 11:05:47 PM
GM Spider Bite = Spiderman (in the latest installments anyways)

GM Soy Plant = Soyman???
 
2013-01-23 12:04:21 AM
As long as they don't repro---

www.familyguyfiles.com

Too late.
 
2013-01-23 12:14:13 AM
This result is proof of the principle. The principle is that Big Money neither knows nor cares about the future of the earth or its population where there is money to be made. Teh gummint is not going to change that principle, because too many politicians are owned by Big Money. Neither can the rest of us, because we have no real power. Yes, the future is screwed. It has been so since the industrial revolution. The only uncertainty is how much time it will take and whether humans will survive.
 
2013-01-23 12:41:15 AM
Man, GM just can't seem to catch a break.  Unless it's a virus, I guess.
 
2013-01-23 12:56:23 AM

GAT_00: So I'll settle for bring on the blister rust.


Windup girls first.
 
2013-01-23 02:44:13 AM
Wait. Are you saying GM foods cause Japanese porn?
 
2013-01-23 03:07:12 AM
Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.We don't have any idea, so read this scary sounding article instead because we we don't like genetically modified crops.
 
2013-01-23 04:44:49 AM

Lsherm: Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.We don't have any idea, so read this scary sounding article instead because we we don't like genetically modified crops.


Wow, I'm glad a scientist showed up and told someone.
 
2013-01-23 04:46:48 AM
.......and then 28 days later.......

/ .....oh wait, this is fark. I meant 26 MINUTES later, in the gym......
 
2013-01-23 04:52:48 AM

ShawnDoc: GAT_00: So I'll settle for bring on the blister rust.

Windup girls first.


They're so hot!
 
2013-01-23 04:57:13 AM
EAT DORITOS
cache.ohinternet.com
KIDNEYS FALL OUT OF YOUR ASS
 
2013-01-23 04:58:43 AM
Could be worse.

monsterhunter.coldfusionvideo.com
 
2013-01-23 04:59:09 AM

Nofun: GM Spider Bite = Spiderman (in the latest installments anyways)

GM Soy Plant = Soyman???


www.albinoblacksheep.com
 
2013-01-23 05:04:00 AM
Every article on that website seems to be pants-wettingly afraid of SOMETHING. GMOs. Fracking. I saw something about the evil scientific community conspiracy 'excommunicating a heretic'. Pesticides killing our children, news after the jump. It just kept going on and on.
 
2013-01-23 05:06:50 AM
Luckily, I don't live in the US,
 
2013-01-23 05:09:56 AM

LowbrowDeluxe: Every article on that website seems to be pants-wettingly afraid of SOMETHING. GMOs. Fracking. I saw something about the evil scientific community conspiracy 'excommunicating a heretic'. Pesticides killing our children, news after the jump. It just kept going on and on.


Just because every other article is fearmongering bullshiat doesn't mean this one shouldn't be paid attention to with the utmost diligence.
 
2013-01-23 05:21:12 AM
I've been vaccinated with autism, so I'm immune.
 
2013-01-23 05:21:12 AM
I only get my science news from indie science news.
 
2013-01-23 05:25:12 AM

Insatiable Jesus: Lsherm: Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.We don't have any idea, so read this scary sounding article instead because we we don't like genetically modified crops.

Wow, I'm glad a scientist showed up and told someone.


They told you, you just can't read.
 
2013-01-23 05:29:22 AM
They spend an enormous amount of time talking about how horrific Gene VI is, but only mention that portions of Gene VI are inserted in GM crops. If they had inserted all of Gene VI, allowing it to be expressed and thus giving the crops all those adverse traits, they would have chucked it away and started again. And we'd all have cancerous third heads (after 20 years of us consuming all that mutant produce)

Their beef seems to be that some portions of a specific gene from a virus has been inserted into a crop. Which is essentially what GM is all about.
 
2013-01-23 05:34:41 AM
I, for one, welcome our purple-skinned tentacle-
sporting, winged lizard
people overlords!
 
2013-01-23 05:38:00 AM
the good news is that vegans should turn first.
 
2013-01-23 06:01:23 AM
Accidently on purpose, you mean.

/sincerely, the Illiuminati.
 
2013-01-23 06:29:35 AM

Rustico: Isn't this why the FDA and all the regulators should be abolished--so the companies can police themselves?
I mean, they would never let something like this occur If left to their own, right?Right?


No, we should pay an arm and a leg for regulatory bodies because they prevented it, right? Right?
 
2013-01-23 06:29:47 AM
"Might be...." "May cause...."

I'll be alarmed later, if it's all the same to you.
 
2013-01-23 06:39:21 AM
so yall do realise that "viral genes" are like diseases that transmit interpersonally and irrevocably alter your genetic makep right? like, the worst kind of potentially nonlethal disease possible?

it's not like it will contaminate the entire world food supply right? oh wait, .. whatevr.

fark all of you.
 
2013-01-23 06:42:42 AM
weknowmemes.com
 
2013-01-23 06:49:41 AM
After reading the story then perusing the rest of the site, I have to question the source since it's all anti-genetically modified crops.
 
2013-01-23 06:52:12 AM

This About That: This result is proof of the principle. The principle is that Big Money neither knows nor cares about the future of the earth or its population where there is money to be made. Teh gummint is not going to change that principle, because too many politicians are owned by Big Money. Neither can the rest of us, because we have no real power. Yes, the future is screwed. It has been so since the industrial revolution. The only uncertainty is how much time it will take and whether humans will survive.


Wrong, Libby von Libbenstein, the market is self-correcting! That means when enough purple shambling tentacle beasts have burst from the chests of humans to "redirect market incentives", Monsanto will be happy to go back to normal crops. That is, unless the purple shambling tentacle beasts prove to be a "malleable consumer base with considerable market-driving income".
 
2013-01-23 06:55:04 AM

untaken_name: Rustico: Isn't this why the FDA and all the regulators should be abolished--so the companies can police themselves?
I mean, they would never let something like this occur If left to their own, right?Right?

No, we should pay an arm and a leg for regulatory bodies because they prevented it, right? Right?


Please, have some Thalidomide on me.
 
2013-01-23 07:02:15 AM
mixnmojo.com
 
2013-01-23 07:08:18 AM

knowless: so yall do realise that "viral genes" are like diseases that transmit interpersonally and irrevocably alter your genetic makep right? like, the worst kind of potentially nonlethal disease possible?

it's not like it will contaminate the entire world food supply right? oh wait, .. whatevr.

fark all of you.


No, no they don't. Thats really not easy to do at all. Do they insert their genome into yours? Yes, where they infect some of them do. But its not so simple as "well, this material is in corn, so obviously it can infect you JUST LIKE A VIRUS." Viruses aren't composed of single genes and it takes a several mechanisms to facilitate infection, insertion, replication, etc. You can't just ingest (or even inject...) pieces of random genes and expect them to be successfully inserted.

Plus, it doesn't "irrevocably alter your genetic code forever." To get permanent genetic changes you have to have a germ-line level infection. The cells of your body are constantly in a cycle of birth, use, wearing out, and death. Depending on the tissue, cell-type, cell-damage from various factors, how fast or slow this occurs changes. To get permanent change you have to infect these "growing areas." Considering this is just a piece of a single gene, without the rest of the infection machinery, thats incredibly unlikely. Its even more unlikely when you take into account the human digestive tract has evolved to resist foreign interlopers. Its one of the few internal places in the body regularly exposed to the outside world and is not exactly a cuddly happy environment for non-hardy organisms, let alone bits of random genetic material.

/basic explanation for basic misunderstanding.
//was my biggest pet peeve with Bourne Legacy.
 
2013-01-23 07:12:33 AM

born_yesterday: Wrong, Libby von Libbenstein, the market is self-correcting! That means when enough purple shambling tentacle beasts have burst from the chests of humans to "redirect market incentives", Monsanto will be happy to go back to normal crops. That is, unless the purple shambling tentacle beasts prove to be a "malleable consumer base with considerable market-driving income".


Thank you. I feel much better now.
 
2013-01-23 07:18:17 AM
I'm kind of excited about the wings...

/I'd prefer a flying car, but those guys dropped the ball.
 
2013-01-23 07:21:28 AM
There's not anything going into your mouth that's not wild fish that hasn't likely been the target of foraging ancestors plotting to make it fatter and tastier the old fashioned way. And those old fashioned ways? They're sometimes moderately to balls cringingly scary in outcome too, when you make potatoes that can't handle a specific pestilence that shows up and half the country starves or something.
 
2013-01-23 07:24:15 AM
In addition, on a closer read the concern in the article is this viral material when expressed in corn produces a toxin. Its not talking about the material infecting humans (which, as I said above, is a ridiculous idea anyway in this case). The concern is that the targets of this toxin might be in humans. Of course, they just say the targets are "Ribosomes and gene silencing" which is hugely general. Considering "ribosome" is a type of biological machinery (which ribosome(s)? and every organism is the same! right? oh wait...) and gene silencing is an action, NOT an actual thing. Panicky article is panicky and provides poor information.
 
2013-01-23 07:25:46 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: knowless: so yall do realise that "viral genes" are like diseases that transmit interpersonally and irrevocably alter your genetic makep right? like, the worst kind of potentially nonlethal disease possible?

it's not like it will contaminate the entire world food supply right? oh wait, .. whatevr.

fark all of you.

No, no they don't. Thats really not easy to do at all. Do they insert their genome into yours? Yes, where they infect some of them do. But its not so simple as "well, this material is in corn, so obviously it can infect you JUST LIKE A VIRUS." Viruses aren't composed of single genes and it takes a several mechanisms to facilitate infection, insertion, replication, etc. You can't just ingest (or even inject...) pieces of random genes and expect them to be successfully inserted.

Plus, it doesn't "irrevocably alter your genetic code forever." To get permanent genetic changes you have to have a germ-line level infection. The cells of your body are constantly in a cycle of birth, use, wearing out, and death. Depending on the tissue, cell-type, cell-damage from various factors, how fast or slow this occurs changes. To get permanent change you have to infect these "growing areas." Considering this is just a piece of a single gene, without the rest of the infection machinery, thats incredibly unlikely. Its even more unlikely when you take into account the human digestive tract has evolved to resist foreign interlopers. Its one of the few internal places in the body regularly exposed to the outside world and is not exactly a cuddly happy environment for non-hardy organisms, let alone bits of random genetic material.

/basic explanation for basic misunderstanding.
//was my biggest pet peeve with Bourne Legacy.


Is this basically the equivalent of saying if a chick blows someone with cancer she can get it too or am i missing something?
 
2013-01-23 07:27:54 AM

MisterMook: There's not anything going into your mouth that's not wild fish that hasn't likely been the target of foraging ancestors plotting to make it fatter and tastier the old fashioned way. And those old fashioned ways? They're sometimes moderately to balls cringingly scary in outcome too, when you make potatoes that can't handle a specific pestilence that shows up and half the country starves or something.


A-freaking-men. Just because we haven't been deliberately inserting specific genes into various crops doesn't mean we haven't been actively manipulating them via the "natural methods." There is literally no difference between selective breeding and direct genetic manipulation except in scope. In selective breeding the ENTIRE GENOME IS POTENTIALLY IN PLAY. In direct manipulation you are moving a handful of known genes.
 
2013-01-23 07:31:59 AM
I find that with topics like this all one needs to do is visit a few skeptic sites to find out the real deal. and as usual this is bullshiat.
 
2013-01-23 07:32:26 AM
Independent science news?

There is only two states. Science and not science. So if you are independent of science, that means constructing your own state of science news.

In other words, it isn't science news, it is whatever we want to think science news.

Not science.
 
2013-01-23 07:35:00 AM

turbocucumber: [mixnmojo.com image 640x400]


Ah, you beat me to it. *golf clap*

\If anyone needs me, I'll be in my Chrono-John
 
2013-01-23 07:35:31 AM

NickelP: Wicked Chinchilla: knowless: so yall do realise that "viral genes" are like diseases that transmit interpersonally and irrevocably alter your genetic makep right? like, the worst kind of potentially nonlethal disease possible?

it's not like it will contaminate the entire world food supply right? oh wait, .. whatevr.

fark all of you.

No, no they don't. Thats really not easy to do at all. Do they insert their genome into yours? Yes, where they infect some of them do. But its not so simple as "well, this material is in corn, so obviously it can infect you JUST LIKE A VIRUS." Viruses aren't composed of single genes and it takes a several mechanisms to facilitate infection, insertion, replication, etc. You can't just ingest (or even inject...) pieces of random genes and expect them to be successfully inserted.

Plus, it doesn't "irrevocably alter your genetic code forever." To get permanent genetic changes you have to have a germ-line level infection. The cells of your body are constantly in a cycle of birth, use, wearing out, and death. Depending on the tissue, cell-type, cell-damage from various factors, how fast or slow this occurs changes. To get permanent change you have to infect these "growing areas." Considering this is just a piece of a single gene, without the rest of the infection machinery, thats incredibly unlikely. Its even more unlikely when you take into account the human digestive tract has evolved to resist foreign interlopers. Its one of the few internal places in the body regularly exposed to the outside world and is not exactly a cuddly happy environment for non-hardy organisms, let alone bits of random genetic material.

/basic explanation for basic misunderstanding.
//was my biggest pet peeve with Bourne Legacy.

Is this basically the equivalent of saying if a chick blows someone with cancer she can get it too or am i missing something?


Sort of. Depending on where the cancer was and if it had metastasized though it might be theoretically more likely for your scenario to happen than this one, given the fact cancer cells are whole cells that won't die and replicate like mofo's and my response was taking issue with bits and pieces of genetic material.
 
2013-01-23 07:46:56 AM

turbocucumber:


Well done.
 
2013-01-23 07:48:51 AM
Parsing through the horribly written, panicky article: Part of a viral gene, gene VI has been found pasted to one of the common promoters used in GM crops. No one knows what it will do. Gene VI is pathogenic normally, but that is in conjunction with the rest of the viral genome. The article then gets all panicky about toxins poisoning people. However the most likely effect will be to make crops containing the VI section to be more susceptible to disease than non-GM crops. No one knows. More testing is needed.
 
2013-01-23 07:49:23 AM

Kaydub: Genetically antagonistic corn. Really?


kidsdungeonadventure.com
 
2013-01-23 07:59:16 AM

untaken_name: Rustico: Isn't this why the FDA and all the regulators should be abolished--so the companies can police themselves?
I mean, they would never let something like this occur If left to their own, right?Right?

No, we should pay an arm and a leg for regulatory bodies because they prevented it, right? Right?


Well the first thing is that Monsanto is using the government, via IP and the courts to bludgeon farmers who want to practice the natural tradecraft with intellectual property theft and sue them out of existence. So, if you eliminate the government, you end the protections for Monsanto, and they actually have to compete on the basis of quality of their product, which, as I'm sure you will agree, is inferior to organically grown produce. So, by asking for more regulation, you're asking for more Monsanto.
 
2013-01-23 07:59:28 AM
Not a real science magazine. Check the tone of the articles. This is an anti-science magazine with an agenda.
One gene is not a virus, and they don't even say whether the protein has been found in the foodstuffs.
 
2013-01-23 08:00:14 AM
Hah, "Independent" Science News as in not peer-reviewed or even fact-checked (I'll bet.)
 
2013-01-23 08:22:17 AM

Nuclear Monk: I'm kind of excited about the wings...

/I'd prefer a flying car, but those guys dropped the ball.


Just 2 more years until we get hoverboards and self-tying shoes! I know Michael J. Fox would never lie to me!
 
2013-01-23 08:24:55 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: A-freaking-men. Just because we haven't been deliberately inserting specific genes into various crops doesn't mean we haven't been actively manipulating them via the "natural methods." There is literally no difference between selective breeding and direct genetic manipulation except in scope. In selective breeding the ENTIRE GENOME IS POTENTIALLY IN PLAY. In direct manipulation you are moving a handful of known genes.


Well, the difference is that no amount of selective breeding is going to make your cat glow in the dark if they don't already have that trait somewhere to be selected for. With direct manipulation, you CAN introduce genes (if you want to) that were previously nowhere in the genome. As I understand it, we're not doing much/any of that in a mass food production environment, just in labs.

That being said, most objections to GMO foods are based on dogmatic "natural=good, altered=bad" which is silly and shortsighted when you're stuck on a rock with 7 billion people (and rising).
 
2013-01-23 08:25:35 AM
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112 - Genetically Modified Organisms: Jeopardy or Jackpot?
Are GMO crops dangerous, or a boon to mankind?

SPOILERS - possibly greatest boon to mankind ever.
 
2013-01-23 08:28:17 AM
Sometimes you get the feeling sites like these are paid for by the GM companies to make opposition to their technologies look as ill-informed and ignorant of reality and basic biology as possible.
 
2013-01-23 08:30:08 AM

incendi: Wicked Chinchilla: A-freaking-men. Just because we haven't been deliberately inserting specific genes into various crops doesn't mean we haven't been actively manipulating them via the "natural methods." There is literally no difference between selective breeding and direct genetic manipulation except in scope. In selective breeding the ENTIRE GENOME IS POTENTIALLY IN PLAY. In direct manipulation you are moving a handful of known genes.

Well, the difference is that no amount of selective breeding is going to make your cat glow in the dark if they don't already have that trait somewhere to be selected for. With direct manipulation, you CAN introduce genes (if you want to) that were previously nowhere in the genome. As I understand it, we're not doing much/any of that in a mass food production environment, just in labs.

That being said, most objections to GMO foods are based on dogmatic "natural=good, altered=bad" which is silly and shortsighted when you're stuck on a rock with 7 billion people (and rising).


That is very true, and does complicate it a bit. However as you later point out, a vanishingly small number of people understand the difference and just say "its not natural!!!!!" which makes not a bit of damn sense.

/GFP is as fun as it is useful
 
2013-01-23 08:31:55 AM
This would be concerning if our stomach acid didn't digest DNA.
 
2013-01-23 08:34:46 AM

NickelP: Is this basically the equivalent of saying if a chick blows someone with cancer she can get it too or am i missing something?


That's about it. It's fearmongering bullshiat, as you might expect from the anti GMO nuts.

Also, subby should have gone with one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater.
 
2013-01-23 08:37:37 AM
But I was assured that GM crops are completely safe!
 
2013-01-23 08:37:53 AM
Translated for your convenience:

When you make a GM crop, you insert foreign genes into an existing plant. To make those genes do something, you add a "promoter" -- a genetic sequence that controls where and when the gene is expressed ("does something").

The promoter in question is derived from a plant virus. It's not a "virus gene"; it's something the virus uses to control where it gets expressed in the plant it infects.

However, it includes a portion of a virus gene. In other words, part of this promoter is "spelled the same way" as a particular virus gene.

Normally, this wouldn't matter -- because of the way genetic machinery works, this sequence doesn't get transcribed and translated into a protein. However, genetic machinery is complex and sometimes error-prone, so it's conceivable that this sequence could actually produce viral protein fragments.

Is this a reason to panic? Well, it certainly is if you're a cauliflower, and might well be if you're another sort of plant. It's a plant virus. It makes plants sick.

This is bad for people -- specifically, seed suppliers and growers, who don't want sick plants. For consumers? That's a really, really big stretch.

Let's see what you're saying if you're claiming that this is dangerous to people. You're saying that scientists and their nefarious schemes have introduced this Evil Foreign DNA from one plant into another, something that could never ever happen In Nature -- but now, if you eat that plant, it'll kill you dead and then give you CANCER, because it's perfectly easy and natural for a plant virus to somehow leap into an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KINGDOM and start infecting humans.

If you're comfortable with that level of selectivity in your suspension of disbelief, well, I'm sure TFA will make perfect sense to you. Personally, though, I'm seeing some pretty big holes in their arguments.
 
2013-01-23 08:42:10 AM

vinniethepoo: Hah, "Independent" Science News as in not peer-reviewed or even fact-checked (I'll bet.)


Basic background check: Neither author's name appears in a Scifinder or Google Scholar search.

Publication legitimacy check: Also, looking at the other articles on the site, yeah, this is a conspiracy theory site that focuses on making shiat up whole-cloth or scaremongering about GM food, nothing of actual substance, there.

Actual science check: the article seems confused as to the basic high-school biology level of how viruses work. Encoding viral DNA into other organisms is how viruses reproduce, they do it without any interference from human biologists, it's not terribly dangerous, and a substantial portion of your own genetic code consists of old viral DNA.

What they're talking about, if it's even true, is only of interest in establishing the pedigree of the crop in question, and has nothing to do with whether the crop is healthy/nutritious or not. Without the delivery system, i.e. the actual virus, DNA fragments don't have any way to get into your cells even if they _did_ survive the digestive tract.
 
2013-01-23 08:45:50 AM
Rather, it's not unhealthy for people. Given the source it could have some impact on the growth of the crop if you completely ignore the fact that we've been growing crops with it for a while and it's done nothing.
 
2013-01-23 08:53:20 AM

Jim_Callahan: vinniethepoo: Hah, "Independent" Science News as in not peer-reviewed or even fact-checked (I'll bet.)

Basic background check: Neither author's name appears in a Scifinder or Google Scholar search.

Publication legitimacy check: Also, looking at the other articles on the site, yeah, this is a conspiracy theory site that focuses on making shiat up whole-cloth or scaremongering about GM food, nothing of actual substance, there.

Actual science check: the article seems confused as to the basic high-school biology level of how viruses work. Encoding viral DNA into other organisms is how viruses reproduce, they do it without any interference from human biologists, it's not terribly dangerous, and a substantial portion of your own genetic code consists of old viral DNA.

What they're talking about, if it's even true, is only of interest in establishing the pedigree of the crop in question, and has nothing to do with whether the crop is healthy/nutritious or not. Without the delivery system, i.e. the actual virus, DNA fragments don't have any way to get into your cells even if they _did_ survive the digestive tract.


And there is at least one naturalistic fallacy dipshiat who is a Facebook friend with my cousin who will link to this on her newsfeed. A lesbian tattoo artist who lives in Cloverdale. I have to block that garbage. She's like the girl in Tim Minchin's Storm.
 
2013-01-23 09:00:27 AM

jfarkinB: Let's see what you're saying if you're claiming that this is dangerous to people. You're saying that scientists and their nefarious schemes have introduced this Evil Foreign DNA from one plant into another, something that could never ever happen In Nature -- but now, if you eat that plant, it'll kill you dead and then give you CANCER, because it's perfectly easy and natural for a plant virus to somehow leap into an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KINGDOM and start infecting humans.


I think what they're actually trying to say is that this particular bit of material could potentially activate other bits of genetic material in an unpredictable fashion possibly resulting in production of unexpected proteins in the plant, which could potentially be harmful if ingested.

Wait, let's try that again:

I think what they're actually trying to say is that this particular bit of material could potentially activate other bits of genetic material in an unpredictable fashion possibly resulting in production of unexpected proteins in the plant, which could potentially be harmful if ingested.

 Basically, some far-fetched hand-wringing, but not quite the magic you imply.
 
2013-01-23 09:11:42 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: MisterMook: There's not anything going into your mouth that's not wild fish that hasn't likely been the target of foraging ancestors plotting to make it fatter and tastier the old fashioned way. And those old fashioned ways? They're sometimes moderately to balls cringingly scary in outcome too, when you make potatoes that can't handle a specific pestilence that shows up and half the country starves or something.

A-freaking-men. Just because we haven't been deliberately inserting specific genes into various crops doesn't mean we haven't been actively manipulating them via the "natural methods." There is literally no difference between selective breeding and direct genetic manipulation except in scope. In selective breeding the ENTIRE GENOME IS POTENTIALLY IN PLAY. In direct manipulation you are moving a handful of known genes.


There is a bit of a difference between breeding your crops to produce particular traits, and inserting genetic material from a completely different organism. Unless you think Gregor Mendel figured out a way to breed a pea plant with a frog.
 
2013-01-23 09:15:24 AM
Evolution. It's what's for dinner.
 
2013-01-23 09:17:32 AM

Xythero: This would be concerning if our stomach acid didn't digest DNA.


Exactly.

incendi: jfarkinB: Let's see what you're saying if you're claiming that this is dangerous to people. You're saying that scientists and their nefarious schemes have introduced this Evil Foreign DNA from one plant into another, something that could never ever happen In Nature -- but now, if you eat that plant, it'll kill you dead and then give you CANCER, because it's perfectly easy and natural for a plant virus to somehow leap into an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KINGDOM and start infecting humans.

I think what they're actually trying to say is that this particular bit of material could potentially activate other bits of genetic material in an unpredictable fashion possibly resulting in production of unexpected proteins in the plant, which could potentially be harmful if ingested.

Wait, let's try that again:

I think what they're actually trying to say is that this particular bit of material could potentially activate other bits of genetic material in an unpredictable fashion possibly resulting in production of unexpected proteins in the plant, which could potentially be harmful if ingested.

 Basically, some far-fetched hand-wringing, but not quite the magic you imply.


Great Scott! I think they've got it.
 
2013-01-23 09:19:31 AM
The only thing more derpy than Conservative "news" sites is the anti-GMO "naturalistic" "science" sites.
 
2013-01-23 09:21:24 AM
Wicked Chinchilla: MisterMook: There's not anything going into your mouth that's not wild fish that hasn't likely been the target of foraging ancestors plotting to make it fatter and tastier the old fashioned way. And those old fashioned ways? They're sometimes moderately to balls cringingly scary in outcome too, when you make potatoes that can't handle a specific pestilence that shows up and half the country starves or something.

A-freaking-men. Just because we haven't been deliberately inserting specific genes into various crops doesn't mean we haven't been actively manipulating them via the "natural methods." There is literally no difference between selective breeding and direct genetic manipulation except in scope. In selective breeding the ENTIRE GENOME IS POTENTIALLY IN PLAY. In direct manipulation you are moving a handful of known genes.

There is a bit of a difference between breeding your crops to produce particular traits, and inserting genetic material from a completely different organism. Unless you think Gregor Mendel figured out a way to breed a pea plant with a frog.


That's only if you think of organisms as organisms. By the time most geneticists get out of third year of grad school, worldview has shifted to where organisms are bags of genes, and not discrete entities.

My favorite Quote from elsewhere on that site?

According to Failure to Yield, a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, that promise has proven to be a mirage. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed so far to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

They're concerned.
 
2013-01-23 09:22:49 AM
are the evil scientists who made the devil corn lighter than a duck or not? I know they played god with nature, and that's already terribad. I just need to know if they are lighter than a duck.

I could not tell from the article.

/panic!
 
2013-01-23 09:23:42 AM
Smells like bullshiat.

From the abstract of the first linked article: "A bioinformatic analysis was performed to assess the safety for human and animal health of putative translation products of gene VI overlapping P35S. No relevant similarity was identified between the putative peptides and known allergens and toxins, using different databases."

The second linked article is, interestingly, available in full text... along with over a dozen letters to the editor describing the multiple flaws in the paper, including some calling for its outright retraction.

Oh look, even the EU group that deals with GMOs, the EFSA, thinks it's bullshiat. This on a continent that regulated GMOs very tightly.

Meanwhile, from that article: "Séralini's backers claim that he's the victim of a 'covert war' orchestrated by supporters of GM technology to discredit criticism. 'Behind the cohort of academic titles [of critics] that are listed is a hidden 'biotech sphere' which brings together biotechnology researchers, regulatory policy experts and representatives of industry.'"

When you have to result to "we're up against a conspiracy," then your science is bullshiat.

/bullshiat
 
2013-01-23 09:32:19 AM
So the nuts where right?
 
2013-01-23 09:38:41 AM

Maul555: So the nuts where right?


Nope.
 
2013-01-23 09:47:39 AM
i guarantee you noone reading this article knows what 35S is, what a gene fragment is, the difference between a gene and a gene product is, what leaky expression is, or that mostly all genomes in all higher species are pretty much nothing but viruses already. 35S has been used in the lab for over 30 years, scientists have probably noticed how to include it without having extra gene bits expressing themselves (in a variety of genetic backgrounds). my only wish and hope is that Monsanto's HR will enact a little 35S-near-total-constitutive-promotion behind reading my resume and hiring me.
 
2013-01-23 09:48:41 AM

LazarusLong42: Smells like bullshiat.

From the abstract of the first linked article: "A bioinformatic analysis was performed to assess the safety for human and animal health of putative translation products of gene VI overlapping P35S. No relevant similarity was identified between the putative peptides and known allergens and toxins, using different databases."

The second linked article is, interestingly, available in full text... along with over a dozen letters to the editor describing the multiple flaws in the paper, including some calling for its outright retraction.

Oh look, even the EU group that deals with GMOs, the EFSA, thinks it's bullshiat. This on a continent that regulated GMOs very tightly.

Meanwhile, from that article: "Séralini's backers claim that he's the victim of a 'covert war' orchestrated by supporters of GM technology to discredit criticism. 'Behind the cohort of academic titles [of critics] that are listed is a hidden 'biotech sphere' which brings together biotechnology researchers, regulatory policy experts and representatives of industry.'"

When you have to result to "we're up against a conspiracy," then your science is bullshiat.

/bullshiat


wow what cool comments, do u got a doctorate in plant breeding or something?
 
2013-01-23 09:51:58 AM
I really don't like the anti-GMO crowd. So you found a gene fragment? In "crops"? What crops? What organisms specifically?

"Might" be dangerous for humans? Have you studied it at all? What's the basis for this claim?

It's not wrong to study these things to make sure they're healthy as we go on, that's a great idea. I just dislike the fact that if something small is found, the cry is "NO GMO AT ALL EVER." It's seems unnecessarily technophobic and not based on fact.
 
2013-01-23 10:10:14 AM
Soon....
i.cdn.turner.com

Genie is out of the box....if GM produce is determined or found out to be dangerous, it's too late to stop it as it has now spread to 'natural' farms.
 
2013-01-23 10:36:26 AM

LasersHurt: I really don't like the anti-GMO crowd. So you found a gene fragment? In "crops"? What crops? What organisms specifically?

"Might" be dangerous for humans? Have you studied it at all? What's the basis for this claim?

It's not wrong to study these things to make sure they're healthy as we go on, that's a great idea. I just dislike the fact that if something small is found, the cry is "NO GMO AT ALL EVER." It's seems unnecessarily technophobic and not based on fact.


You echo my opinions precisely.
GMO's have some wonderful promise (and could really save our necks in the future...) so they should be embraced, but cautiously. We need to put in the necessary homework with these things to ensure we are doing good. Its too bad the anti-GMO crowd primarily speaks in absolutes.
/the world is Grey Jack!
 
2013-01-23 11:05:37 AM
The Europeans tightly regulate GMOs for a reason.

In America you're not even allowed to label them as "GMO".

Is this a great country, or what?
 
2013-01-23 11:05:39 AM
What do I care what my food's DNA is? I'm going to eat, not mate with it or fuse with it. Its chemical structure including DNA will be broken down by my digestive system.
 
2013-01-23 11:09:06 AM

Nem Wan: What do I care what my food's DNA is? I'm going to eat, not mate with it or fuse with it. Its chemical structure including DNA will be broken down by my digestive system.


FTFA: They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats

Try new Corn Chex. Same delicious taste, but now with tumors!
 
2013-01-23 11:23:51 AM
Macs don't get viruses.
 
2013-01-23 11:26:28 AM

Marcus Aurelius: The Europeans tightly regulate GMOs for a reason.

In America you're not even allowed to label them as "GMO".

Is this a great country, or what?


Would that reason be superstition and fear? Labeling was up for popular vote here in California recently; it was voted down.
 
2013-01-23 11:48:33 AM

Marcus Aurelius: The Europeans tightly regulate GMOs for a reason.

In America you're not even allowed to label them as "GMO".

Is this a great country, or what?


They tightly regulate them because their citizens don't understand the methods behind it. I'm willing to bet agricultural lobbyists (who wield quite a bit of power in the EU) probably saw US GMOs (products that are in direct competition with their offerings) as something that would be great for shellacking in rumors. Rumors lead to regulation (see: drugs, assault weapons, abortion), and most of the time, said regulation is misguided.

That's my guess at least.

That being said, we eat the stuff every day, and so far... from what I can tell... I'm not rotting from the inside because of it.
 
2013-01-23 11:49:07 AM

Maul555: So the nuts where right?


shut up and post some pictures of genetically modified Kosher women.
 
2013-01-23 12:08:30 PM

Marine1: Marcus Aurelius: The Europeans tightly regulate GMOs for a reason.

In America you're not even allowed to label them as "GMO".

Is this a great country, or what?

They tightly regulate them because their citizens don't understand the methods behind it. I'm willing to bet agricultural lobbyists (who wield quite a bit of power in the EU) probably saw US GMOs (products that are in direct competition with their offerings) as something that would be great for shellacking in rumors. Rumors lead to regulation (see: drugs, assault weapons, abortion), and most of the time, said regulation is misguided.

That's my guess at least.

That being said, we eat the stuff every day, and so far... from what I can tell... I'm not rotting from the inside because of it.


Its a combination of this and a fairly strict regulatory culture in certain biotech realms. The Europeans have always been super cautious on GMO's though so I think its primarily a culture thing.
 
2013-01-23 12:09:31 PM

Repo Man: Jim_Callahan: vinniethepoo: Hah, "Independent" Science News as in not peer-reviewed or even fact-checked (I'll bet.)

Basic background check: Neither author's name appears in a Scifinder or Google Scholar search.

Publication legitimacy check: Also, looking at the other articles on the site, yeah, this is a conspiracy theory site that focuses on making shiat up whole-cloth or scaremongering about GM food, nothing of actual substance, there.

Actual science check: the article seems confused as to the basic high-school biology level of how viruses work. Encoding viral DNA into other organisms is how viruses reproduce, they do it without any interference from human biologists, it's not terribly dangerous, and a substantial portion of your own genetic code consists of old viral DNA.

What they're talking about, if it's even true, is only of interest in establishing the pedigree of the crop in question, and has nothing to do with whether the crop is healthy/nutritious or not. Without the delivery system, i.e. the actual virus, DNA fragments don't have any way to get into your cells even if they _did_ survive the digestive tract.

And there is at least one naturalistic fallacy dipshiat who is a Facebook friend with my cousin who will link to this on her newsfeed. A lesbian tattoo artist who lives in Cloverdale. I have to block that garbage. She's like the girl in Tim Minchin's Storm.


If anyone hasn't seen that animated short I highly recommend it, the girl reminds me of my mothers best friend/chiropractor that got her hooked on homeopath bullshiat and other 'natural' crap
 
2013-01-23 12:10:32 PM
So GMO might not be entirely safe. Was the obvious tag unavailable for comment?
 
2013-01-23 12:17:33 PM
Seriously, wake me up when they decide it's worth their time to actually start labeling their little food experiments.
 
2013-01-23 12:18:45 PM

NFA: cameroncrazy1984: Where's the downside here?

God only knows.  It could be a massive cancer epidemic 14 years after exposure.  Or blindness, or virtually anything, or nothing.


soo..it could be giant penises for guys? ( or complete removal of spacial awareness ability from women?)
 
2013-01-23 12:28:42 PM
Honest question here: can anyone point out one major disease or syndrome outbreak that has resulted from sustained human consumption from off-the-shelf foods produced with GMOs?
 
2013-01-23 01:05:14 PM

Nuclear Monk: I'm kind of excited about the wings...

/I'd prefer a flying car, but those guys dropped the ball.


so long as the wings are functional.
\what kind of wingspan would be required for a 220lb 6'2" human.
\\fit not fark standard
\\\could I carry a coconut?
 
2013-01-23 01:33:25 PM
Monsanto can suck it!
 
2013-01-23 01:34:15 PM

Sybarite: Kaydub: Genetically antagonistic corn. Really?
[kidsdungeonadventure.com image 200x170]


Oh yeah, you laugh, but just wait until that ear of corn picks up an AR-15.

/If I had photoshop I'd do it myself.
 
2013-01-23 02:15:13 PM
This is obviously an 0bummerfartbongo government ploy to get dorks and comic book nerds to eat vast amounts of fruits and vegetables.
 
2013-01-23 02:30:33 PM
campademics.wdfiles.com
 
2013-01-23 02:38:44 PM
Cows have a gene that expresses itself as udders in female.

So.... we've been eating beef for thousands of years, why haven't women sprouted 8 teats?

I'm really sick of this anti-GM crap. Bad science designed to scare half-wits. Without GM crops half the world starves.
 
2013-01-23 02:43:45 PM
So, big ag has an enormous profit incentive for pushing GMO, while anti-GMO are all hysterical nutjobs without any scientific credibility whatsoever. So we are all pro-GMO, or written off as nutjobs. Got it.

FWIW, I think the references to the great potato famine are spot on with regards to the potential risk. What my feeble-non plant biologist mind was able to glean from the article is that the viral gene portion might make GMO plants more susceptible in the case of, oh, for instance, the sudden appearance of a novel virus. Not that that ever happens.

I wonder what would happen if annual food crop yield went down by, say, 10% one year. I'm sure there would be hardly any noticeable effect.
 
2013-01-23 02:58:02 PM
purple-skinned tentacle-sporting, winged lizard people

NTTAWWT
 
2013-01-23 03:27:48 PM
Clearly, the rational response is to ban all frankenfood immediately.
 
2013-01-23 03:57:19 PM

LesserEvil: Cows have a gene that expresses itself as udders in female.

So.... we've been eating beef for thousands of years, why haven't women sprouted 8 teats?

I'm really sick of this anti-GM crap. Bad science designed to scare half-wits. Without GM crops half the world starves.


Lowering world population, which is better for the environment and then Genetically Modified Agricultural Products wouldn't be needed.
 
2013-01-23 04:00:23 PM

ferretman: Lowering world population, which is better for the environment and then Genetically Modified Agricultural Products wouldn't be needed.


Yeah, but then social security and similar programs don't work as well with a dwindling population.
 
2013-01-23 04:05:17 PM
I have no problem with GMO so long as they are properly regulated, tested and controlled. There can be some problems that arise with new allergens introduced and such (as it has been seen in the past). My biggest gripe is the patents that companies are allowed to have on genetic material. I'll let you own the patent on how to insert the genes, how to make them, how to modify them, but not their actual makeup. What you're talking about is patenting life. life which self reproduces by it's own nature and design. If you built me a robot, and told me the only thing that robot does (and is capable of doing) is build more robots exactly like itself, sold it to me, and then told me that when it builds another one of itself that you own the product; I'd tell you to go fark yourself.
 
2013-01-23 04:27:14 PM

ferretman: LesserEvil: Cows have a gene that expresses itself as udders in female.

So.... we've been eating beef for thousands of years, why haven't women sprouted 8 teats?

I'm really sick of this anti-GM crap. Bad science designed to scare half-wits. Without GM crops half the world starves.

Lowering world population, which is better for the environment and then Genetically Modified Agricultural Products wouldn't be needed.


There are probably better ways to do that than having people starve to death.

/just sayin'
 
2013-01-23 04:42:19 PM

Marine1: Honest question here: can anyone point out one major disease or syndrome outbreak that has resulted from sustained human consumption from off-the-shelf foods produced with GMOs?


No, because the research hasn't been done yet.

I could, however, give you quite a long list of things that corporations have assured us were safe, which turned out not to be quite so safe.
 
2013-01-23 04:46:11 PM

LesserEvil: Cows have a gene that expresses itself as udders in female.

So.... we've been eating beef for thousands of years, why haven't women sprouted 8 teats?

I'm really sick of this anti-GM crap. Bad science designed to scare half-wits. Without GM crops half the world starves.


Speaking of bad science designed to scare half-wits...
 
2013-01-23 04:55:44 PM

CheekyMonkey: Marine1: Honest question here: can anyone point out one major disease or syndrome outbreak that has resulted from sustained human consumption from off-the-shelf foods produced with GMOs?

No, because the research hasn't been done yet.

I could, however, give you quite a long list of things that corporations have assured us were safe, which turned out not to be quite so safe.


Not interested in a list of things that aren't related.

If these things are going to be the death of us all, then something would have already shown up. It's been 13 years... even Agent Orange didn't take that long to manifest, and that stuff was a pathogen in healthy young men. If this stuff is going to poison someone slowly, it will have done so by now. Either it will or it won't. Now where's the outbreak?
 
2013-01-23 05:14:45 PM

CheekyMonkey: LesserEvil: Cows have a gene that expresses itself as udders in female.

So.... we've been eating beef for thousands of years, why haven't women sprouted 8 teats?

I'm really sick of this anti-GM crap. Bad science designed to scare half-wits. Without GM crops half the world starves.

Speaking of bad science designed to scare half-wits...


Obviously "half the world" is a hyperbole, but the point is simple: a  LOT of people would starve without the yields provided for by GM crops. Likewise, such crops are able to grow in many places that would otherwise not be farmable.

The difference is that my statement is based in fact, while this whole voodoo "virus genes in my foods!" is nonsense. It may also be that the world cannot sustain more than 4 billion people without the use of GM and bio-engineered crops. Consider how the worlds population has exploded in the last 30~40 years...

Even "World Peace" has a terrible price. Sustaining the continuing growth of the world population means squeezing every acre of crop for the highest possible yields - and that doesn't happen with organics, or even the bioengineered hybrids.

That doesn't mean companies like Monsanto get a blank check to do whatever they want, but it does mean people need to stop being morans, pining for a "more simple existence without pesticides and herbicides adulterating their food" - geesh... first world problems, indeed. Heaven forbid science intrudes on your desire to enjoy the smug you get from eating your organic salads in the company cafeteria and telling people how they'll die horribly from colo-rectal cancer because they are as good a person as you are.
 
2013-01-23 05:14:48 PM

Marine1: CheekyMonkey: Marine1: Honest question here: can anyone point out one major disease or syndrome outbreak that has resulted from sustained human consumption from off-the-shelf foods produced with GMOs?

No, because the research hasn't been done yet.

I could, however, give you quite a long list of things that corporations have assured us were safe, which turned out not to be quite so safe.

Not interested in a list of things that aren't related.

If these things are going to be the death of us all, then something would have already shown up. It's been 13 years... even Agent Orange didn't take that long to manifest, and that stuff was a pathogen in healthy young men. If this stuff is going to poison someone slowly, it will have done so by now. Either it will or it won't. Now where's the outbreak?


Not necessarily. How long does it take for something like asbestosis to show up? 20 years? Yes, I know, not exactly the same thing, but you see my point.

BTW, I'm not saying I disagree with you regarding this particular instance. I, too, think it's likely that if the fragment of Gene IV was going to cause any problems, someone would have seen something by now. On the other hand, though, how long did it take for the tobacco companies to admit that cigarette smoking was detrimental to people's health? I'm not inclined to accept assurances from people with a vested financial interest...
 
2013-01-23 05:46:31 PM

CheekyMonkey: Marine1: CheekyMonkey: Marine1: Honest question here: can anyone point out one major disease or syndrome outbreak that has resulted from sustained human consumption from off-the-shelf foods produced with GMOs?

No, because the research hasn't been done yet.

I could, however, give you quite a long list of things that corporations have assured us were safe, which turned out not to be quite so safe.

Not interested in a list of things that aren't related.

If these things are going to be the death of us all, then something would have already shown up. It's been 13 years... even Agent Orange didn't take that long to manifest, and that stuff was a pathogen in healthy young men. If this stuff is going to poison someone slowly, it will have done so by now. Either it will or it won't. Now where's the outbreak?

On the other hand, though, how long did it take for the tobacco companies to admit that cigarette smoking was detrimental to people's health? I'm not inclined to accept assurances from people with a vested financial interest...


It took them forever to admit it in the face of mounting evidence. That's the difference... so far, there is no evidence.

If there was something... we'd have it. But we don't. Millions of Americans, of all different types, eat GMO food on a daily basis, and have done so for years. Nothing has come of this that is both negative and directly attributable to a diet consisting in part or completely of GMO food. You have almost every possible permutation being tested here, not in lab conditions with mice, but in the real world with human beings.
 
2013-01-24 01:27:07 AM
Wait, that's a bad thing? I'm just taking notes here so I know what's on the exam.
 
2013-01-24 07:54:53 AM

Marine1: Honest question here: can anyone point out one major disease or syndrome outbreak that has resulted from sustained human consumption from off-the-shelf foods produced with GMOs?


I can't, but I'm really interested in the rise of food allergies and its relationship between gmo foods, overly hygienic environments, and the interaction between the two
 
2013-01-24 08:57:45 AM

Marine1: CheekyMonkey: Marine1: CheekyMonkey: Marine1: Honest question here: can anyone point out one major disease or syndrome outbreak that has resulted from sustained human consumption from off-the-shelf foods produced with GMOs?

No, because the research hasn't been done yet.

I could, however, give you quite a long list of things that corporations have assured us were safe, which turned out not to be quite so safe.

Not interested in a list of things that aren't related.

If these things are going to be the death of us all, then something would have already shown up. It's been 13 years... even Agent Orange didn't take that long to manifest, and that stuff was a pathogen in healthy young men. If this stuff is going to poison someone slowly, it will have done so by now. Either it will or it won't. Now where's the outbreak?

On the other hand, though, how long did it take for the tobacco companies to admit that cigarette smoking was detrimental to people's health? I'm not inclined to accept assurances from people with a vested financial interest...

It took them forever to admit it in the face of mounting evidence. That's the difference... so far, there is no evidence.

If there was something... we'd have it. But we don't. Millions of Americans, of all different types, eat GMO food on a daily basis, and have done so for years. Nothing has come of this that is both negative and directly attributable to a diet consisting in part or completely of GMO food. You have almost every possible permutation being tested here, not in lab conditions with mice, but in the real world with human beings.


That's not necessarily true. It took several decades for the ill effects of smoking to be noticed, correlated to smoking, and for real research to begin. And then, for several decades more, the tobacco companies continued to fight against the mounting evidence.

You're being short-sighted if you think that 13 years is sufficient time for all problems to show up.
 
2013-01-24 09:37:30 AM
So, wait. The coding of the virus that is used to insert the modifications was found? DUH! that's like saying you found used needles in a diabetic's trash can, and then suggesting people could use them to shoot heroin.
 
2013-01-25 02:54:37 AM

AgonistAlex: So, wait. The coding of the virus that is used to insert the modifications was found? DUH! that's like saying you found used needles in a diabetic's trash can, and then suggesting people could use them to shoot heroin.


But people actually could get the used needles out of the trash can of a diabetic and use them to shoot heroin.

I am confused as to your point.
 
Displayed 122 of 122 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report