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.

(USA Today)   Monsanto gene-hacked wheat that escaped in Oregon has been contained, according to USDA scientists who hope their families will be released safely   (usatoday.com) divider line 95
    More: Followup, Monsanto, USDA, Eastern Oregon, wheat, genes  
•       •       •

4088 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2013 at 6:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-16 11:40:01 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.comIt's  the Roundup™  stupid.
 
2013-06-16 11:42:22 PM

Silverstaff: Bourbon whiskey, made from corn, she has a mild reaction to (she'll still sip it, she is a Kentuckian after all, but it's a rare thing for her


Let's hope that she's not allergic to the charred oak barrels. If it's the oak that she is allergic to, oak pollen could be a problem.
 
2013-06-16 11:43:43 PM

eldoobie: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 226x223]It's  the Roundup™  stupid.


I'm ready, KILL THE OTHER THINGS...
 
2013-06-16 11:51:46 PM

jopy666: Monsanto has bred Terminator seeds and released them in the wild and have affected millions of farmers and ruined their crops. Dont like that? Monsanto will sue you out of existence. THey have filled the entire government with their paid shills, the head of the FDA is also the head of Monsanto and they have shut down any free speach against them time and time again through their legal thugs. GMOs are untested and unregulated and Monsanto has paid off the government to ensure that remains. In europe and Zambia they are banned because its been proven to be near poison for the environment and people and is the sole cause of the near extinction of the bees. Monsanto should be shut down for crimes against humanity and all of the workers and scientists should be jailed and farmers who use their frankenseeds should be banned from farming entirely. The entire planet is near death and no matter where you look monsanto has a hand in killing it.


That's some mighty fine copypasta from facebook right there
 
2013-06-17 12:18:02 AM
"contained" kinda like trying to completely remove a picture that has been put on the internet. "Yeah, We got it under control..."
 
2013-06-17 01:00:02 AM

Crown_of_Shoes: I live in oregon and frequently find wheat growing on the banks of the Willamette river from falling off of boats (massive shipping vessels) during loading. So there's one way they can escape.


Or....it could be more genetically engineered than they're telling us.
 
2013-06-17 01:40:00 AM

Dr_Gene: I'm willing to be corrected... all you need do is give the citation to ANY US/Canadian court case where Monsanto (or any other company) successfully sued a farmer for inadvertent presence of GMOs.


Well, it depends how you frame the question (and you've done it in such a way that you can basically shrug them off by saying the farmers knew what was going on), but the two cases I can think of off the top of my head are Monsanto (Canada) v Schmeiser and Bowman v Monsanto. Both cases were argued before the Supreme Court of their respective country, and both cases basically established that the mere presence of glyphosate-resistant crops in a field is patent infringement. The second case is particularly interesting because it essentially means that the farmer has become responsible for ensuring that any seed obtained from a source other than a biotechnology company contains no patented genetic material. So basically, it's no longer possible to just buy some soybeans and plant them in a field, unless you're okay paying the license fees Monsanto demands if it turns out those seeds you bought came from a roundup ready variety.

Now, to the farmer, RR products are a huge benefit. But they're pricey. So naturally people will look for ways to get ahold of the product without paying the premium. I don't blame Monsanto for seeking to protect their rights, but the fallout of these court cases is pretty far reaching in the agriculture industry. You basically have to buy seed from a seed company these days; it's too risky to follow the traditional method of obtaining seed - just keeping some of what you grew last year.
 
2013-06-17 04:04:03 AM

BMFPitt: Would have been even better as a Photoshop contest


Actually I think there was one...but I don't remember when.
 
2013-06-17 06:19:07 AM

Silverstaff: I know some people act like anybody who opposes GMO's or supports organic food is some tinfoil-hat wearing weirdo, or that there is no proof that GMOs can be harmful, or that it's all a big dihydrogen monoxide-type scare. . .

Let me share with you my little CSB about why I don't trust GMO's anymore and why my household has gone organic in its food.

My wife used to have one food allergy, just one.  She was allergic to nuts, most severely to almonds, but mildly allergic to most kinds of nuts (except peanuts, for some reason, probably because they are technically legumes and not nuts).

Well, two years ago, my wife suddenly went into anaphylactic shock.  We rushed her to the hospital, and the ER docs confirmed she had a major allergic reaction.  We had no idea to what.

A followup appointment at an allergist showed that she was now severely allergic to corn and soy, and also allergic to a lesser extent to oats, as well as her previously documented nut allergies.

Well, in case you didn't know, eating around a severe corn allergy SUCKS.  That means that anything with HFCS is right out (it's not indistinguishable from sugar, her body can sure as heck tell the difference), and between that and corn syrup, corn starch, "modified food starch" (made from corn starch), corn meal, and such that means pretty much all processed food is right out.  Also, corn-fed livestock retain enough corn proteins in the flesh to set off her allergies (to a lesser extent), so we have to buy grass fed beef (and basically skip all pork and chicken, since it's next to impossible to find non-corn-fed pork and chicken).

Since HFCS isn't allowed in organic foods, to avoid that in products we started to have to buy organic foods.  Then we accidentally bought some organic foods which contained her allergens in them.  Oddly enough, she can eat organic oats with no problems, and has a much, much lesser reaction to organic soy and a weaker reaction to organic corn.

There's some difference there, that ...


Oh crap - not so much for me who can eat anything - but one of my nieces is highly allergic to nuts and it has never once crossed my mind that I should be looking out for so-called Soy too.

I had never thought of it before reading your response but the 'essentially the same' concept has some canyon sizes flaws in it.

Monsanto has to go - as do all for-profit businesses that seem to put their profits above my niece's well being.

If she were to die from eating (so-called) soy, I wonder if I could charge them with manslaughter (we really need to change the name of this charge to simply 'slaughter')?!

Meh: and this can go on my NSA record (I will make sure he dies of an allergie) - if the above does happen then the CEO of the Australian arm of Monsanto will die not long after ... from some sort of allergic reaction to something ....
 
2013-06-17 06:28:29 AM

WelldeadLink: Silverstaff: Bourbon whiskey, made from corn, she has a mild reaction to (she'll still sip it, she is a Kentuckian after all, but it's a rare thing for her

Let's hope that she's not allergic to the charred oak barrels. If it's the oak that she is allergic to, oak pollen could be a problem.


I'm allergic to oak.   No problem with Bourbon, wine, or other oak-aged beverages.
 
2013-06-17 08:48:08 AM

star_topology: Kinek: jopy666: Monsanto has bred Terminator seeds and released them in the wild and have affected millions of farmers and ruined their crops. Dont like that? Monsanto will sue you out of existence. THey have filled the entire government with their paid shills, the head of the FDA is also the head of Monsanto and they have shut down any free speach against them time and time again through their legal thugs. GMOs are untested and unregulated and Monsanto has paid off the government to ensure that remains. In europe and Zambia they are banned because its been proven to be near poison for the environment and people and is the sole cause of the near extinction of the bees. Monsanto should be shut down for crimes against humanity and all of the workers and scientists should be jailed and farmers who use their frankenseeds should be banned from farming entirely. The entire planet is near death and no matter where you look monsanto has a hand in killing it.

Dear god. It's like Natural News, Mother Jones, and the Angry masturbating homeless bus stop man had a baby, and that baby had tourette's.

I LOL'd but that post is spot-on.


No it's not. It's not right at all.

First: Terminator seeds have never been commercially used. Monsanto purchased them in case the public ever decided that genetic isolation was a good plan for GM.

Second: Monsanto has sued 140 odd people, settled with ~700 Out of court. Over ten years. That's not that many suits, and all suits that they've ever filed, the farmer has a concentration of Roundup ready seed to a point where inadvertant contamination is not a possibility. A Judge agreed with them when Organic farmers filed a class action to just this point. It was dismissed because the Orgo group could not point to a single case where this happened.

Third: GMOs are highly tested and regulated. More so in europe, but I have to wait a year here to get a license to get a single set of transgenics, and treat them with more care than I do RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL. We've spent the last 30 years testing GM. It has never once credibly thrown flags of being dangerous because it's GM. (There is the case above about the Brazil nuts, this has to do with what was inserted, not the GM nature. Additionally it was caught in testing.)

Fourth: Europe is based off a precautionary principle, where you have to prove something safe. This is pants on head retarded in many cases. We have to prove something dangerous in order to outlaw it.

The rest of it is populist bullshiat. You're going to jail and kill the people who do this work? Do you know why they work for Monsanto? Because the Public decided to fark over agronomists and plant geneticists and pay them shiat.
 
2013-06-17 08:51:33 AM

Langdon_777: Oh crap - not so much for me who can eat anything - but one of my nieces is highly allergic to nuts and it has never once crossed my mind that I should be looking out for so-called Soy too.


Except that no soy product contains nut allergens, and if your niece isn't dead by now, then no. You shouldn't be looking out for 'So-called soy'. Because it doesn't contain nuts. The listing of the person above was from a lab test. Not a field test.
 
2013-06-17 08:56:44 AM

costermonger: The second case is particularly interesting because it essentially means that the farmer has become responsible for ensuring that any seed obtained from a source other than a biotechnology company contains no patented genetic material. So basically, it's no longer possible to just buy some soybeans and plant them in a field, unless you're okay paying the license fees Monsanto demands if it turns out those seeds you bought came from a roundup ready variety.


That's not true. The SCOTUS ruling (and incidentally the Schmeiser ruling) hinge on willfulness. First of all, Bowman obtained his seed from a non-seed silo. It was meant for cattle forage. He agreed to not seed it at the silo's point of sale. That's strike one. He then applied Round-up. This is the point that comes up again and again. The act of purification is where it turns for accident to willful infringement. Bowman /could/ have purchased his Soy from a seed bin, and as long as he didn't purify it, it would have been fine. In the Schmeiser case, Monsanto specifically said they dropped the 1997 crop (The one that was contaminated), and sued over the 1998 case BECAUSE of the purification. 1997 wasn't purified, but 1998 was.
 
2013-06-17 09:04:49 AM

Kinek: Langdon_777: Oh crap - not so much for me who can eat anything - but one of my nieces is highly allergic to nuts and it has never once crossed my mind that I should be looking out for so-called Soy too.

Except that no soy product contains nut allergens, and if your niece isn't dead by now, then no. You shouldn't be looking out for 'So-called soy'. Because it doesn't contain nuts. The listing of the person above was from a lab test. Not a field test.


I know who you get paid by :P (the word you are looking for is 'shrill'.)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo -w hitewash/5316294

Honestly I look forward to watching your's (and their) souls withering in flames.

They have no bloody idea whether the DNA from a brazilian nut, implanted into something else, will or will not result in an allergic reaction of someone with nut allergies. And quite frankly they DO NOT CARE!!!!
 
2013-06-17 09:12:46 AM

Langdon_777: Kinek: Langdon_777: Oh crap - not so much for me who can eat anything - but one of my nieces is highly allergic to nuts and it has never once crossed my mind that I should be looking out for so-called Soy too.

Except that no soy product contains nut allergens, and if your niece isn't dead by now, then no. You shouldn't be looking out for 'So-called soy'. Because it doesn't contain nuts. The listing of the person above was from a lab test. Not a field test.

I know who you get paid by :P (the word you are looking for is 'shrill'.)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo -w hitewash/5316294

Honestly I look forward to watching your's (and their) souls withering in flames.

They have no bloody idea whether the DNA from a brazilian nut, implanted into something else, will or will not result in an allergic reaction of someone with nut allergies. And quite frankly they DO NOT CARE!!!!


You mean I get paid by you because I work for a public university, why yes. Yes I do. Thank you for your funding.

And actually, we have fantastic ability to detect allergic reactions. It's called a scratch test. Allergen testing is actually the easiest reaction to test.

But fantastic way to indicate that you have no ability to think critically, if your Weeners to actual knowledge is to reach for the shill rock.
 
2013-06-17 09:17:20 AM

Langdon_777: Kinek: Langdon_777: Oh crap - not so much for me who can eat anything - but one of my nieces is highly allergic to nuts and it has never once crossed my mind that I should be looking out for so-called Soy too.

Except that no soy product contains nut allergens, and if your niece isn't dead by now, then no. You shouldn't be looking out for 'So-called soy'. Because it doesn't contain nuts. The listing of the person above was from a lab test. Not a field test.

I know who you get paid by :P (the word you are looking for is 'shrill'.)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo -w hitewash/5316294

Honestly I look forward to watching your's (and their) souls withering in flames.

They have no bloody idea whether the DNA from a brazilian nut, implanted into something else, will or will not result in an allergic reaction of someone with nut allergies. And quite frankly they DO NOT CARE!!!!


OHGOD. Seralini.

Look, Seralini is the GM equivalent of the scientists who get paid by industry to discredit Climate change. Seralini has been reprimanded by most food scientists, the EU, the French academy, and basically every statistics body involved in the field because his methods DON'T CONTROL FOR CONFOUNDING DATA.

Basically, he fed GM ...something. Soy, corn, doesn't matter. To a species of rat that as it ages, grows tumours. His controls grew tumors. The experimental unit also grew tumors. His takeaway from this is that GM causes cancer. This is utterly, and completely wrong. Statistically.
 
2013-06-17 09:17:43 AM

Dr_Gene: PunGent:In any case, it's unlikely the GM factor is to blame for her allergies, as the processed foods (like HFCS and soy sauce) are purified of any GM substances, and without allergenic substances, no allergic reactions.

Also, you say she is also allergic to oats... There are no GM oats-- not even an early generation field trial-- so something else in the oats (and likely the corn and soy) is causing her distress

Your first statement is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.
Citation needed.
Your second statement is flat-out incorrect:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/gm-oats-can-tolerate-continuou s- salt.html

You shout that my first statement is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY without giving any data, evidence or other rationale. You are the one who needs to provide a citation showing that novel allergens from GM crops have been shown present in processed foods. Since I cannot prove  a negative,  the onus for proof shift to you.
And,
If you bothered to go to the original literature instead of relying on a blog summary, you'd know that the GM oat you cite-- now almost ten years later-- was never commercialized, and not even grown outside in "an early generation field trial"-- exactly as I said.


YOU said, quote, "there are no GM oats".
Your words, provably false.  Feel free to re-phrase if you find that offensive.

Afa allergens, the problem is there hasn't been ANY testing afaik...we'll all just have to wait and see.

Neither one of us has to prove anything...this crap is already out there.
We'll all find out in due time what effects, if any, it has.

And, thanks to Monsanto's lobbying, we can't even sue for damages.

I'm sure GM foods will have some notable benefits for humanity...just like nuclear power.
But unfortunately for all you apologists out there, I'm old enough to remember being told that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter, and too safe to worry about.

If you still think that's the case, I've got some land for sale, cheap, near Fukushima.

So, I'm sceptical of ALL industry claims, and not just in the GM field.

Sorry, just the way it is.

And, to head off the inevitable shallow-brained 'luddite' accusations, I'll point out, again, that I own stock in agribiz.
And in the extraction and energy sectors.

I just don't see the need to sugar-coat everything the way industry mouthpieces do.
 
2013-06-17 09:20:53 AM

Kinek: Langdon_777: Kinek: Langdon_777: Oh crap - not so much for me who can eat anything - but one of my nieces is highly allergic to nuts and it has never once crossed my mind that I should be looking out for so-called Soy too.

Except that no soy product contains nut allergens, and if your niece isn't dead by now, then no. You shouldn't be looking out for 'So-called soy'. Because it doesn't contain nuts. The listing of the person above was from a lab test. Not a field test.

I know who you get paid by :P (the word you are looking for is 'shrill'.)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo -w hitewash/5316294

Honestly I look forward to watching your's (and their) souls withering in flames.

They have no bloody idea whether the DNA from a brazilian nut, implanted into something else, will or will not result in an allergic reaction of someone with nut allergies. And quite frankly they DO NOT CARE!!!!

You mean I get paid by you because I work for a public university, why yes. Yes I do. Thank you for your funding.

And actually, we have fantastic ability to detect allergic reactions. It's called a scratch test. Allergen testing is actually the easiest reaction to test.

But fantastic way to indicate that you have no ability to think critically, if your Weeners to actual knowledge is to reach for the shill rock.


Ok for a serious moment - Monsanto does 90 day tests on their things.

The study quoted was 2 years.

I really do not want to go looking for the pics of the cancerous growths on the mice - but it becomes pretty obvious that allowing companies to provide their own 'proofs' tends to be dangerous.

And wow you work for a university that only accepts public funding? Seriously no corporate sponsored stuff, ya know they type where if the result are not what was expected then the PhD student is no longer allowed to publish hir results?

Monsanto only cares about their shareholders (they do not even give a fark about their employees), so any sort of 'research' they produce is instantly suspect and if we only had properly funded public research we would know just how suspect their studies are.
 
2013-06-17 09:24:51 AM
To stop some arguments at the gate.

Being an Australian - if the CSIRO says that something is safe then I will tend to listen too them (unlike in the USoA we fund our govt research bodies very well.)

Listening to Monsato's own research is just dangerous - they have no obligation or even spoken comittment to care for anyone but themselves.
 
2013-06-17 09:33:51 AM

Langdon_777: Kinek: Langdon_777: Kinek: Langdon_777: Oh crap - not so much for me who can eat anything - but one of my nieces is highly allergic to nuts and it has never once crossed my mind that I should be looking out for so-called Soy too.

Except that no soy product contains nut allergens, and if your niece isn't dead by now, then no. You shouldn't be looking out for 'So-called soy'. Because it doesn't contain nuts. The listing of the person above was from a lab test. Not a field test.

I know who you get paid by :P (the word you are looking for is 'shrill'.)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo -w hitewash/5316294

Honestly I look forward to watching your's (and their) souls withering in flames.

They have no bloody idea whether the DNA from a brazilian nut, implanted into something else, will or will not result in an allergic reaction of someone with nut allergies. And quite frankly they DO NOT CARE!!!!

You mean I get paid by you because I work for a public university, why yes. Yes I do. Thank you for your funding.

And actually, we have fantastic ability to detect allergic reactions. It's called a scratch test. Allergen testing is actually the easiest reaction to test.

But fantastic way to indicate that you have no ability to think critically, if your Weeners to actual knowledge is to reach for the shill rock.

Ok for a serious moment - Monsanto does 90 day tests on their things.

The study quoted was 2 years.

I really do not want to go looking for the pics of the cancerous growths on the mice - but it becomes pretty obvious that allowing companies to provide their own 'proofs' tends to be dangerous.

And wow you work for a university that only accepts public funding? Seriously no corporate sponsored stuff, ya know they type where if the result are not what was expected then the PhD student is no longer allowed to publish hir results?

Monsanto only cares about their shareholders (they do not even give a fark about their employees), so ...


The study quoted is wrong. I don't know how to tell you this, but if a control group and an experimental group result in the same outcome, the study is inconclusive. That's why controls exist. To account for all confounding variables. So no, it doesn't matter how long he ran the study, his conclusion is invalid because he ignored the control response and instead decided to declare that GMOs caused cancer. Instead of the more valid conclusion of age causes cancer. Or rats get cancer as they age.

The science is the only thing that matters. And in this case, Seralini's science is bad. And he should feel bad.
 
2013-06-17 09:35:35 AM

PunGent: Afa allergens, the problem is there hasn't been ANY testing afaik...we'll all just have to wait and see.


That's utterly wrong. If there's no allergen testing, how did the brazil nut soy get caught and published.

/I'll give you a hint. It was allergen testing
 
2013-06-17 09:37:32 AM

Langdon_777: And wow you work for a university that only accepts public funding? Seriously no corporate sponsored stuff, ya know they type where if the result are not what was expected then the PhD student is no longer allowed to publish hir results?


You keep on trying to paint me as a shill because you disagree with me. This isn't going to go well for you.
 
2013-06-17 09:38:44 AM
Put simply I do not trust them, their is nothing in their motivation that produces trust.

They reek of slimy, money grubbing, self-benefiting, do-not-give-a-fark-about-anything-beyond-medium-term-profits greedy bastards.

Their patients should be enough to convict them.

The evidence suggesting that RoundUp is very bad for the environment (esp. bees) should be enough - and yet they keep making products that demand more RoundUp.

They are not an ally of the people rather they are a wannabe master.
 
2013-06-17 09:43:26 AM
Who sponsors your research?

Public funds?

A not for profit institution with no vested interests?

I will argue with a PhD on the topic and probably win on nothing but who funded your research!?

They are not for the people, they are for the dollar.
 
2013-06-17 09:43:28 AM

Langdon_777: The evidence suggesting that RoundUp is very bad for the environment (esp. bees)


Neo-nicotonoids are the supposed killers of bees. Roundup is not a neo-nicotonoids.
 
2013-06-17 09:44:48 AM

Langdon_777: Who sponsors your research?

Public funds?

A not for profit institution with no vested interests?

I will argue with a PhD on the topic and probably win on nothing but who funded your research!?

They are not for the people, they are for the dollar.


Full Disclosure: My funding comes from the NSF and the USDA. I work in a non-industry supported crop.
 
2013-06-17 10:10:34 AM
So now that funding and degrees are on the table, what are /Your/ qualifications?

/I didn't pull out the credentials argument, you did. Well, one of you did.
 
2013-06-17 10:43:39 AM

Kinek: So now that funding and degrees are on the table, what are /Your/ qualifications?

/I didn't pull out the credentials argument, you did. Well, one of you did.


Yeah it was me, but my background is Economics and I KNOW from first hand experience what motivates corporations.

And I say again I just do not trust them - they are motivated by one thing and one thing only -> SHAREHOLDER'S PROFIT!

They do not give a fark about anything else - let us think for a moment about the use of Aspesdos (lol I spelt it wrong but the only option on spell check was 'Desperado')...

'Asbestos' was defended for decades and it is a natural substance, the dangers from gene manipulation could be with us for forever!!!

We should never let profit get anywhere near to things that can destroy all of us.

(yes I cannot believe we let private corporations run nuclear plants or deadly virus research - one can never know when the balance sheets will suggest that it is better for the bottom line to release a virus than to stop it.)
 
2013-06-17 11:02:57 AM

Langdon_777: Kinek: So now that funding and degrees are on the table, what are /Your/ qualifications?

/I didn't pull out the credentials argument, you did. Well, one of you did.

Yeah it was me, but my background is Economics and I KNOW from first hand experience what motivates corporations.

And I say again I just do not trust them - they are motivated by one thing and one thing only -> SHAREHOLDER'S PROFIT!

They do not give a fark about anything else - let us think for a moment about the use of Aspesdos (lol I spelt it wrong but the only option on spell check was 'Desperado')...

'Asbestos' was defended for decades and it is a natural substance, the dangers from gene manipulation could be with us for forever!!!

We should never let profit get anywhere near to things that can destroy all of us.

(yes I cannot believe we let private corporations run nuclear plants or deadly virus research - one can never know when the balance sheets will suggest that it is better for the bottom line to release a virus than to stop it.)


So in other words, you know nothing of GM technology. Good to know. Keep yelling. I especially like the multiple exclamation marks. In the words of Terry Pratchett; "five exclamation marks are the sure sign of a diseased mind"
 
2013-06-17 11:23:48 AM
Well I am glad to see that the expected level of civil discourse is ongoing in this thread.

- GMO BAD!!!
- Not necessarily, extensive testing etc.
- PAID SHILL!!!
- Not paid shill, expert in field of study
- PAID SHILL!!

And so on and so forth.  Facebook 'causes' have done more to stupidify people in the last 5 years than anything else...
 
2013-06-17 11:35:58 AM

rnatalie: I've got a solution (at least it works with quarto-triticale,,,

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 850x635]


Will they attribute the tribble problem to Kahns blood?

Also, wouldn't they have encountered tribbles after encountering Kahn, when they were on the mission to seek out and chart new life forms?

/on topic, Monsanto's more concerned about having crops without copyright protection out there.
 
2013-06-17 11:51:35 AM
There is NO WAY to contain this problem. The USDA has lied to you. In fact, I was at an office a few days ago IN OREGON, and they were still discussing the "problem".

This story is BS. You cannot contain nature. Many people in my area are beginning to boycott ANYthing  Monsanto has interest in.

It would be "terrible" for Monsanto reps to go on someone's farm and be mistaken and shot for trespassing...
 
2013-06-17 02:43:05 PM

Kinek: PunGent: Afa allergens, the problem is there hasn't been ANY testing afaik...we'll all just have to wait and see.

That's utterly wrong. If there's no allergen testing, how did the brazil nut soy get caught and published.

/I'll give you a hint. It was allergen testing


Tell it to Dr. Gene up there.
 
2013-06-17 02:44:23 PM

whackamac: There is NO WAY to contain this problem. The USDA has lied to you. In fact, I was at an office a few days ago IN OREGON, and they were still discussing the "problem".

This story is BS. You cannot contain nature. Many people in my area are beginning to boycott ANYthing  Monsanto has interest in.

It would be "terrible" for Monsanto reps to go on someone's farm and be mistaken and shot for trespassing...


Heh...I wonder how long until they try it in Arizona...
 
2013-06-17 02:51:19 PM

Kinek: Langdon_777: Kinek: So now that funding and degrees are on the table, what are /Your/ qualifications?

/I didn't pull out the credentials argument, you did. Well, one of you did.

Yeah it was me, but my background is Economics and I KNOW from first hand experience what motivates corporations.

And I say again I just do not trust them - they are motivated by one thing and one thing only -> SHAREHOLDER'S PROFIT!

They do not give a fark about anything else - let us think for a moment about the use of Aspesdos (lol I spelt it wrong but the only option on spell check was 'Desperado')...

'Asbestos' was defended for decades and it is a natural substance, the dangers from gene manipulation could be with us for forever!!!

We should never let profit get anywhere near to things that can destroy all of us.

(yes I cannot believe we let private corporations run nuclear plants or deadly virus research - one can never know when the balance sheets will suggest that it is better for the bottom line to release a virus than to stop it.)

So in other words, you know nothing of GM technology. Good to know. Keep yelling. I especially like the multiple exclamation marks. In the words of Terry Pratchett; "five exclamation marks are the sure sign of a diseased mind"


Some of you gene guys remind me of the Fark Nuclear Technician we had on while Fukushima was having its little difficulties.

He was very knowledgable and articulate...right up until day three, when he said "a tsunami following an earthquake was unforseeable."   After he called out on THAT, he hasn't been back since, afaik    :)

You guys may be brilliant in your field, but seem to lack all understanding of basic human nature.
Accidents happen, people lie, minimum wage employees screw up, corporations act in their own best interest, Dilemma of the Commons, etc, etc, etc.
All REALLY basic concepts.
Further, you guys keep saying "that's impossible" about THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED.

And then you wonder why we're not 100% on board with your all products all the time...

Demonstrate you can strip drifted genes OUT of the ecosystem, the way oil companies have to be able to clean up THEIR messes, and you'll have my full support.
 
2013-06-17 03:25:01 PM

PunGent: Kinek: Langdon_777: Kinek: So now that funding and degrees are on the table, what are /Your/ qualifications?

/I didn't pull out the credentials argument, you did. Well, one of you did.

Yeah it was me, but my background is Economics and I KNOW from first hand experience what motivates corporations.

And I say again I just do not trust them - they are motivated by one thing and one thing only -> SHAREHOLDER'S PROFIT!

They do not give a fark about anything else - let us think for a moment about the use of Aspesdos (lol I spelt it wrong but the only option on spell check was 'Desperado')...

'Asbestos' was defended for decades and it is a natural substance, the dangers from gene manipulation could be with us for forever!!!

We should never let profit get anywhere near to things that can destroy all of us.

(yes I cannot believe we let private corporations run nuclear plants or deadly virus research - one can never know when the balance sheets will suggest that it is better for the bottom line to release a virus than to stop it.)

So in other words, you know nothing of GM technology. Good to know. Keep yelling. I especially like the multiple exclamation marks. In the words of Terry Pratchett; "five exclamation marks are the sure sign of a diseased mind"

Some of you gene guys remind me of the Fark Nuclear Technician we had on while Fukushima was having its little difficulties.

He was very knowledgable and articulate...right up until day three, when he said "a tsunami following an earthquake was unforseeable."   After he called out on THAT, he hasn't been back since, afaik    :)

You guys may be brilliant in your field, but seem to lack all understanding of basic human nature.
Accidents happen, people lie, minimum wage employees screw up, corporations act in their own best interest, Dilemma of the Commons, etc, etc, etc.
All REALLY basic concepts.
Further, you guys keep saying "that's impossible" about THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED.

And then you wonder why we' ...


Well, there were these things called 'Terminator genes'....
 
2013-06-17 03:29:58 PM

PunGent: Demonstrate you can strip drifted genes OUT of the ecosystem, the way oil companies have to be able to clean up THEIR messes, and you'll have my full support.


Well, there were these things called Terminator genes, that were fantastic for containing GM crops. But then you guys (The WargarbleMonsantoBrigade) decided that this was a gigantic conspiracy, and so the concept was never actually put into practice. Terminator genes would cause all GM crops to be sterile, save for a ridiculously low amount (Like, infinitely low.)
 
2013-06-17 05:57:30 PM

BitwiseShift: revrendjim: Wheat can't spread on its own in the wild

Perhaps it was carried on the legs of these rather large crickets which appeared in the same field.
[i242.photobucket.com image 500x313]


gaaahhh!!!  jeebus farking christmas burn it with fire !!!
 
2013-06-17 07:39:46 PM

Kinek: PunGent: Demonstrate you can strip drifted genes OUT of the ecosystem, the way oil companies have to be able to clean up THEIR messes, and you'll have my full support.

Well, there were these things called Terminator genes, that were fantastic for containing GM crops. But then you guys (The WargarbleMonsantoBrigade) decided that this was a gigantic conspiracy, and so the concept was never actually put into practice. Terminator genes would cause all GM crops to be sterile, save for a ridiculously low amount (Like, infinitely low.)


Speaking of wharglbargl, wiki says you're wrong.  Of course, you guys should be used to it by now...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
 
2013-06-17 08:10:25 PM

PunGent: Kinek: PunGent: Demonstrate you can strip drifted genes OUT of the ecosystem, the way oil companies have to be able to clean up THEIR messes, and you'll have my full support.

Well, there were these things called Terminator genes, that were fantastic for containing GM crops. But then you guys (The WargarbleMonsantoBrigade) decided that this was a gigantic conspiracy, and so the concept was never actually put into practice. Terminator genes would cause all GM crops to be sterile, save for a ridiculously low amount (Like, infinitely low.)

Speaking of wharglbargl, wiki says you're wrong.  Of course, you guys should be used to it by now...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology



Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technology was developed under a cooperative research and development agreement between the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land company in the 1990s, but it is not yet commercially available.[1]
Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for small farmers, Monsanto Company, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology in 1999


What about what I said is wrong? Point out where it says that Terminator does not cause sterility, and that the whargarble did not stop it from happening?

Are you even reading what you're writing?
 
2013-06-17 08:13:20 PM

PunGent: Kinek: PunGent: Demonstrate you can strip drifted genes OUT of the ecosystem, the way oil companies have to be able to clean up THEIR messes, and you'll have my full support.

Well, there were these things called Terminator genes, that were fantastic for containing GM crops. But then you guys (The WargarbleMonsantoBrigade) decided that this was a gigantic conspiracy, and so the concept was never actually put into practice. Terminator genes would cause all GM crops to be sterile, save for a ridiculously low amount (Like, infinitely low.)

Speaking of wharglbargl, wiki says you're wrong.  Of course, you guys should be used to it by now...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology


Use of V-GURT technology could prevent escape of transgenes into wild relatives and prevent any impact on biodiversity.

When you cite a link that says exactly what I'm saying, I think you might have lost the argument.
 
2013-06-17 08:40:18 PM

Kinek: PunGent: Kinek: PunGent: Demonstrate you can strip drifted genes OUT of the ecosystem, the way oil companies have to be able to clean up THEIR messes, and you'll have my full support.

Well, there were these things called Terminator genes, that were fantastic for containing GM crops. But then you guys (The WargarbleMonsantoBrigade) decided that this was a gigantic conspiracy, and so the concept was never actually put into practice. Terminator genes would cause all GM crops to be sterile, save for a ridiculously low amount (Like, infinitely low.)

Speaking of wharglbargl, wiki says you're wrong.  Of course, you guys should be used to it by now...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology


Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technology was developed under a cooperative research and development agreement between the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land company in the 1990s, but it is not yet commercially available.[1]
Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for small farmers, Monsanto Company, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology in 1999


What about what I said is wrong? Point out where it says that Terminator does not cause sterility, and that the whargarble did not stop it from happening?

Are you even reading what you're writing?


Yep...but you're not:

But then you guys (The WargarbleMonsantoBrigade) decided that this was a gigantic conspiracy, and so the concept was never actually put into practice.

Those are your words, in case they've already escaped your short attention span.

You should fix wikipedia, since it disagrees with you.
 
2013-06-17 08:46:00 PM

PunGent: Kinek: PunGent: Kinek: PunGent: Demonstrate you can strip drifted genes OUT of the ecosystem, the way oil companies have to be able to clean up THEIR messes, and you'll have my full support.

Well, there were these things called Terminator genes, that were fantastic for containing GM crops. But then you guys (The WargarbleMonsantoBrigade) decided that this was a gigantic conspiracy, and so the concept was never actually put into practice. Terminator genes would cause all GM crops to be sterile, save for a ridiculously low amount (Like, infinitely low.)

Speaking of wharglbargl, wiki says you're wrong.  Of course, you guys should be used to it by now...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology


Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technology was developed under a cooperative research and development agreement between the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land company in the 1990s, but it is not yet commercially available.[1]
Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for small farmers, Monsanto Company, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology in 1999


What about what I said is wrong? Point out where it says that Terminator does not cause sterility, and that the whargarble did not stop it from happening?

Are you even reading what you're writing?

Yep...but you're not:

But then you guys (The WargarbleMonsantoBrigade) decided that this was a gigantic conspiracy, and so the concept was never actually put into practice.

Those are your words, in case they've already escaped your short attention span.

You should fix wikipedia, since it disagrees with ...


Uhhhhh.

Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for small farmers.
Terminator seeds have not been commercialized anywhere in the world due to opposition from farmers, indigenous peoples, NGOs, and some governments. In 2000, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity recommended a de facto moratorium on field-testing and commercial sale of terminator seeds; the moratorium was re-affirmed in 2006. India and Brazil have passed national laws to prohibit the technology.


And considering Terminator wargarble upthread?

You have a reading problem.
 
2013-06-17 08:48:41 PM
Also, I'm out. Be back next thread.
 
2013-06-18 06:53:11 AM

Kinek: Also, I'm out. Be back next thread.


Don't hurry, since you don't understand the difference between "could" and "will".

Try not to swallow ALL the industry propaganda ALL the time.
 
Displayed 45 of 95 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report