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

(Sun Sentinel)   Mother sues Pepperidge Farm over the "all natural" labels on their Goldfish crackers because they contain genetically modified soybeans. Clearly, she has no idea what she's up against, because Pepperidge Farm remembers. Always   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 94
    More: Florida, Pepperidge Farm, goldfish, Lake Worth, GMOs, artificial flavors, Blue Cross Blue Shield, genetically modified food, crop yields  
•       •       •

1407 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Aug 2013 at 4:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-04 11:53:10 AM  
I just assume that any major food brand has gm ingredients.
 
2013-08-04 01:03:58 PM  
I bet she's an anti-vaxer, too.
 
2013-08-04 01:05:53 PM  
Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives.  Doing it deliberately in a lab is simply more efficient than waiting for nature to throw out a useful mutation.

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.
 
2013-08-04 01:30:06 PM  
Honestly, I'd be a lot more upset about the soy than the GM.
 
2013-08-04 01:46:22 PM  

FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives.  Doing it deliberately in a lab is simply more efficient than waiting for nature to throw out a useful mutation.

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.


Because they put "fish genes" in my high-fructose corn syrup.

FISH GENES FOR F*CK'S SAKE!
 
2013-08-04 01:52:25 PM  
I wouldn't assume that 'all natural' meant no-GMO.  I do think that we should require product labels that declare if a product contains GMO crops, as well as what GMO crop it contains and which company provides it so that people can make the informed choice for example to not buy anything made with products from Monsanto, but since we have no such regulations now, this is just a silly suit that won't go anywhere.
 
2013-08-04 01:56:08 PM  
i218.photobucket.com
/Obligi-pops.
 
2013-08-04 02:19:03 PM  

Shostie: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives.  Doing it deliberately in a lab is simply more efficient than waiting for nature to throw out a useful mutation.

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

Because they put "fish genes" in my high-fructose corn syrup.

FISH GENES FOR F*CK'S SAKE!


i105.photobucket.com
What fish jeans might look like
 
2013-08-04 03:24:03 PM  

FloydA: Shostie: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives.  Doing it deliberately in a lab is simply more efficient than waiting for nature to throw out a useful mutation.

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

Because they put "fish genes" in my high-fructose corn syrup.

FISH GENES FOR F*CK'S SAKE!

[i105.photobucket.com image 203x300]
What fish jeans might look like


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-04 04:12:50 PM  

violentsalvation: FloydA: Shostie: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives.  Doing it deliberately in a lab is simply more efficient than waiting for nature to throw out a useful mutation.

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

Because they put "fish genes" in my high-fructose corn syrup.

FISH GENES FOR F*CK'S SAKE!

[i105.photobucket.com image 203x300]
What fish jeans might look like

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x295]



Know what ELSE causes an increased dopey feeling and colorless gas?  Getting baked and going to Taco Bell.
 
2013-08-04 04:21:22 PM  
You know, Pepperidge farms are not the kind of people I'd mess with. Their methods are unspeakable.

i.qkme.me

We're going to get a follow up about how this woman is sleeping with the fishes.
 
2013-08-04 04:29:11 PM  

FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives.  Doing it deliberately in a lab is simply more efficient than waiting for nature to throw out a useful mutation.

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.


Frankenfoods!!!!  The scientists and big pharm are plotting to kill us all!!!!  Soylent Green is people!!!
 
2013-08-04 04:30:37 PM  

FrancoFile: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives.  Doing it deliberately in a lab is simply more efficient than waiting for nature to throw out a useful mutation.

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

Frankenfoods!!!!  The scientists and big pharm are plotting to kill us all!!!!  Soylent Green is people!!!


You're already dead, you just don't know it yet.
 
2013-08-04 04:45:25 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I wouldn't assume that 'all natural' meant no-GMO.  I do think that we should require product labels that declare if a product contains GMO crops, as well as what GMO crop it contains and which company provides it so that people can make the informed choice for example to not buy anything made with products from Monsanto, but since we have no such regulations now, this is just a silly suit that won't go anywhere.


The idea of informed choice, in the same vein as the idea of informed consent, is a problematic one. Partially because Science has moved so fast, to the point where to the general public, a lot of things seem close to technowizardry. While I support the idea of labels (If only so you all will shut up, purge the anti-GMO sentiment out of your system with the emetic natural to sunshine.), I don't think it will ever come to the point where the public is truly 'Informed'. At least not in the short term.
 
2013-08-04 04:47:21 PM  

FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.


The claim that selective breeding = GMO  is disingenuous. The possibilities for unexpected negative consequences are immensely worse.

With selective breeding you get small quantities of change over a long period of time.

With GMO you could put a new trait in almost the entire US corn crop in one year.

 
2013-08-04 04:54:02 PM  

jaytkay: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

The claim that selective breeding = GMO  is disingenuous. The possibilities for unexpected negative consequences are immensely worse.

With selective breeding you get small quantities of change over a long period of time.

With GMO you could put a new trait in almost the entire US corn crop in one year.


Ahahahahaha. No. Selective breeding comes with its own downfalls. Let me give you an example.

Barley, my pet crop, has been backed into a corner evolutionarily due to malt producers. Beer companies wanted a large number of genes fixed (Read as inbred), which has led barley, at least in the US, to be the equivalent of the inbred backwoods cast of Deliverance. As it stands now, we're having to reach all the way back to ancestors to pull in any kind of diversity. If the selective process had been done with GM techniques, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So, in short. Selective breeding, because it takes so long, leaves you with a product that cannot change easily to changing condition, and you're left with your dick in your hand.

GMOs, while THEORETICALLY (And I stress this, since there's been no GM product brought to market that caused issue reliably.) capable of causing issue, allow us to address issues from year to year, without throwing out the diversity inherent in a species.
 
2013-08-04 04:55:41 PM  
Follow-up: Woman discovers that "all natural' is just marketing speak with no legal constraint
 
2013-08-04 04:55:55 PM  

Shostie: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives.  Doing it deliberately in a lab is simply more efficient than waiting for nature to throw out a useful mutation.

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

Because they put "fish genes" in my high-fructose corn syrup.

FISH GENES FOR F*CK'S SAKE!


They put human genes into bacteria years ago, but you don't hear many people complaining about that because it helps millions of diabetics a year. Sometimes there's something very useful you can get out of recombination that would never have occurred naturally.
 
2013-08-04 04:56:14 PM  
the GMO crowd make me want to facepalm, man has been genetically modifying  plants  and animals since before written history.

Selective breeding livestock for desired traits is genetic modifying them.

cross breeding plants to improve them  is genetic modification.

Now when doing it in a lab i can see the potential for unexpected side effects being greater as the companies that are doing results now and aren't willing to spend time and money to do things the tried and true way.
 
2013-08-04 05:01:03 PM  

Kinek: So, in short. Selective breeding, because it takes so long, leaves you with a product that cannot change easily to changing condition...allow us to address issues from year to year, without throwing out the diversity inherent in a species. .


Selective breeding gives you a product that has been tested over many years. Its good and bad properties are well known.

They would have ruined your barley with selective breeding or genetic engineering. It just took longer without GMO.
 
2013-08-04 05:02:53 PM  

jaytkay: They would have ruined your barley with selective breeding or genetic engineering. It just took longer without GMO.


It's a good thing there are federal safety regulations in place for any GMO product, in that case, isn't it?
 
2013-08-04 05:07:53 PM  

jaytkay: Kinek: So, in short. Selective breeding, because it takes so long, leaves you with a product that cannot change easily to changing condition...allow us to address issues from year to year, without throwing out the diversity inherent in a species. .

Selective breeding gives you a product that has been tested over many years. Its good and bad properties are well known.

They would have ruined your barley with selective breeding or genetic engineering. It just took longer without GMO.


Uh. I don't think you understand. If GMOs had been used, at least the full prospect of what GMOs are capable of, not just insertion of Bt or Round-up. Then you'd have a Barley cultivar that is fixed for ONLY what they require. Rather than huge swathes of genomic regions being as barren and uninteresting as the Sahara.

I know my field. And by and by, the good and bad properties are not KNOWN for commonly released cultivars. There's less regulation for those than there are for GM cultivars.
 
2013-08-04 05:08:06 PM  

grimlock1972: Selective breeding livestock for desired traits is genetic modifying them.

cross breeding plants to improve them is genetic modification.



upload.wikimedia.org
Cuts things


www.joblo.com
Cuts things
 
2013-08-04 05:11:39 PM  

jaytkay: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

The claim that selective breeding = GMO  is disingenuous. The possibilities for unexpected negative consequences are immensely worse.

With selective breeding you get small quantities of change over a long period of time.

With GMO you could put a new trait in almost the entire US corn crop in one year.



Not really.  A mutation is a mutation, whether it occurs with our help or without.  Deliberately inserting genes to create transgenic crops is not any different in principle than waiting for a beneficial mutation to occur, and then selectively replanting it seeds.  There's nothing physically different between a string of nucleotides from a fish chromosome and the same string of nucleotides from a human, spider, or tomato chromosome.  The string ATCG is ATCG, no matter what body it finds itself in.

Nor is there a difference in the magnitude of changes due to genetic engineering, compared to selective breeding.  The effects of a mutation can be invisible, catastrophic, or anywhere in between.  And the risk of unexpected consequences is exactly the opposite of what you suggest.  If you end up with something really nasty in the lab, you just torch it and start over.  If you end up with exactly the same mutation occurring in a field, you might not notice it until it has reproduced.

(And there is no way that the entire US corn crop could be replaced in one year.  The logistics alone would make that impossible.)

I'm not suggesting that you should eat them, or that you should like them, or anything of the sort.  I'm just telling you that the particular concerns you raise are not valid reasons to be wary of GMOs.

There are some good reasons to dislike GMOs (they put too much of the control of our food supply in the hands of Monsanto, for instance), but the "FrankenFoods on a Rampage" scenarios are not good reasons.  They're just fear mongering by people who aren't well-versed in how genetics actually work.
 
2013-08-04 05:16:22 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: grimlock1972: Selective breeding livestock for desired traits is genetic modifying them.

cross breeding plants to improve them is genetic modification.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x1266]
Cuts things


[www.joblo.com image 850x1259]
Cuts things


Precisely. Selective breeding is with a Chainsaw. Transgenics are surgical. Each have their uses.  I'm glad you understand!
 
2013-08-04 05:16:29 PM  
There are lots of guys in New Zealand who have been inserting human DNA into sheep for decades.
 
2013-08-04 05:17:32 PM  

FloydA: jaytkay: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

The claim that selective breeding = GMO  is disingenuous. The possibilities for unexpected negative consequences are immensely worse.

With selective breeding you get small quantities of change over a long period of time.

With GMO you could put a new trait in almost the entire US corn crop in one year.


Not really.  A mutation is a mutation, whether it occurs with our help or without.  Deliberately inserting genes to create transgenic crops is not any different in principle than waiting for a beneficial mutation to occur, and then selectively replanting it seeds.  There's nothing physically different between a string of nucleotides from a fish chromosome and the same string of nucleotides from a human, spider, or tomato chromosome.  The string ATCG is ATCG, no matter what body it finds itself in.

Nor is there a difference in the magnitude of changes due to genetic engineering, compared to selective breeding.  The effects of a mutation can be invisible, catastrophic, or anywhere in between.  And the risk of unexpected consequences is exactly the opposite of what you suggest.  If you end up with something really nasty in the lab, you just torch it and start over.  If you end up with exactly the same mutation occurring in a field, you might not notice it until it has reproduced.

(And there is no way that the entire US corn crop could be replaced in one year.  The logistics alone would make that impossible.)

I'm not suggesting that you should eat them, or that you should like them, or anything of the sort.  I'm just telling you that the particular concerns you raise are not valid reasons to be wary of GMOs.

There are some good reasons to dislike GMOs (they put too much of the control of our food supply in t ...


Hey. I like the cut of your jib. You just spared me a condescending, pop-heavy paragraph.
 
2013-08-04 05:18:46 PM  

FloydA: There are lots of guys in New Zealand who have been inserting human DNA into sheep for decades.


This explains all the New Zealander beards.
 
2013-08-04 05:19:28 PM  
Hey panicky lady, how about them funnyshaped silicone mechanogazzmatrons y'all carefully hide under
your heavily dogeared copy of 50 Shades of Stockholm Syndrome in yer unmentionables drawer?

They got monsantochemicals in them, ya know? "Precious bodily fluids" ring a bell?

Florida and 14 other states are seeking to require the labels at the state level.

OH LOOK JOB KILLING REGULATIONS AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!
 
2013-08-04 05:20:05 PM  
We know a remote farm in Lincolnshire, where Mrs. Buckley lives.  Every July, peas grow there.
 
2013-08-04 05:27:08 PM  

Kinek: Precisely. Selective breeding is with a Chainsaw. Transgenics are surgical. Each have their uses. I'm glad you understand!


each gene lovingly sequenced synthesized base pair by base pair, I'm sure.  No introns that could be fragmented and recombined  into something active.

Not just a chunk of something cut where ever the restriction enzyme happens to work and mixed with some plasmid genome.  Right?
 
2013-08-04 05:35:12 PM  

Kinek: Not really. A mutation is a mutation, whether it occurs with our help or without.


Oh I see, you think breeding causing mutations.

That's adorable.
 
2013-08-04 05:43:20 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Kinek: Not really. A mutation is a mutation, whether it occurs with our help or without.

Oh I see, you think breeding causing mutations.

That's adorable.


Your reading comprehension needs work.
 
2013-08-04 05:48:48 PM  

FloydA: Vlad_the_Inaner: Kinek: Not really. A mutation is a mutation, whether it occurs with our help or without.

Oh I see, you think breeding causing mutations.

That's adorable.

Your reading comprehension needs work.


Why? Should I have said that it was adorable that he thinks selective breeding requires waiting for a mutation, rather than just increasing the frequency of a gene that has probably been bouncing around the wild gene pool for years instead?
 
2013-08-04 06:09:50 PM  

Kinek: And by and by, the good and bad properties are not KNOWN for commonly released cultivars. There's less regulation for those than there are for GM cultivars.


Ahh, I see, you are shilling for Monsanto, sorry, I didn't know that was your job.

The good and bad properties of selectively bred plants become apparent as they are cultivated over the years.

Genetic engineering allows traits with UNKNOWN good and bad properties to be immediately dispersed across a continent.
 
2013-08-04 06:21:09 PM  
Try and selectively breed as much as you want you can't breed a fish and corn.
 
2013-08-04 06:29:20 PM  

optikeye: Try and selectively breed as much as you want you can't breed a fish and corn.


Oh but how I've tried.

My breakthrough product Forn has yet to become a reality.
 
2013-08-04 06:31:31 PM  
Are they not made from real goldfish?

Next you'll be telling me about girl scout cookies.

www.wearysloth.com

/not hot
//but give it a few years
 
2013-08-04 06:56:04 PM  

jaytkay: Kinek: And by and by, the good and bad properties are not KNOWN for commonly released cultivars. There's less regulation for those than there are for GM cultivars.

Ahh, I see, you are shilling for Monsanto, sorry, I didn't know that was your job.

The good and bad properties of selectively bred plants become apparent as they are cultivated over the years.

Genetic engineering allows traits with UNKNOWN good and bad properties to be immediately dispersed across a continent.


You're not the first one. And you're not the last, to accuse me of being a shill.
I'd like to know when being an expert in a field made you unqualified to speak about a subject?

Good and bad properties of all cultivars are in part, unknown. We know trends, but far and away, unless it's a particularly well charactarized model species, we don't know dick most of the time. Knowing dick requires A) Perfect knowledge of the genome. B) Perfect Understanding of GxE interactions. C) Perfect Understanding of Human Nutrition. D) Perfect understanding of Environmental Impact.

Now, that's not to say we don't know a fark ton. We do. We just don't know everything about even classic cultivars. At least in row crops. So when you come out and say 'Well, we don't know what this insertion does', I have to snicker, because if unknowns are your fear, then you should be starving. We don't know the contents of most of the things you eat. And of those things, even in Sequenced species, we don't know what half the genes really do. Being afraid of transgenics because they cause 'Unknown gene insertions' ignore the fact that classical selective breeding may bring 1000s upon 1000s of genes together that haven't coexisted in quite some time. Causing myriad upon myriad of new interaction effects. But no, it's natural, so that's fine. But transgenics? That's Satan's work.

There are legitimate reasons to dislike Monsanto (Though if you bring up suing farmers, I will have to give you a whole other paragraph on why your understanding of Schmeiser and Bowman is tinted by NaturalNews spin.) The safety of GMOs is not among those legitimate reasons.
 
2013-08-04 06:56:27 PM  

FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives.  Doing it deliberately in a lab is simply more efficient than waiting for nature to throw out a useful mutation.

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.


Because if you can't trust Monsanto, who can you trust?
 
2013-08-04 07:20:15 PM  
Kinek:There are legitimate reasons to dislike Monsanto (Though if you bring up suing farmers, I will have to give you a whole other paragraph on why your understanding of Schmeiser and Bowman is tinted by NaturalNews spin.) The safety of GMOs is not among those legitimate reasons.

I don't like the Bowman ruling, but I understand why the court ruled as it did.  I think Bowman was a bad test case because he had previously signed a contract with Monsanto not to re-plant seeds from his harvests.

What would have happened if it had been a farmer who had never signed a contract with Monsanto who had purchased the bulk soybeans (intended for feed) and decided to plant them instead?  Could Monsanto have done anything since there was never any contract between them?  If the Bowman ruling essentially means that a farmer can't buy seeds and do whatever the fark he wants with them (as long as he doesn't enter into any contract when purchasing those seeds when he buys them) then I think the outrage over the case is entirely justified.
 
2013-08-04 07:37:22 PM  

Kinek: I'd like to know when being an expert in a field made you unqualified to speak about a subject?


When you take a position contrary to evidence you are unqualified.

Sorry to see you do not know that. Good luck in life. You need it.
 
2013-08-04 07:50:16 PM  

Kinek: jaytkay: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

The claim that selective breeding = GMO  is disingenuous. The possibilities for unexpected negative consequences are immensely worse.

With selective breeding you get small quantities of change over a long period of time.

With GMO you could put a new trait in almost the entire US corn crop in one year.

Ahahahahaha. No. Selective breeding comes with its own downfalls. Let me give you an example.

Barley, my pet crop, has been backed into a corner evolutionarily due to malt producers. Beer companies wanted a large number of genes fixed (Read as inbred), which has led barley, at least in the US, to be the equivalent of the inbred backwoods cast of Deliverance. As it stands now, we're having to reach all the way back to ancestors to pull in any kind of diversity. If the selective process had been done with GM techniques, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So, in short. Selective breeding, because it takes so long, leaves you with a product that cannot change easily to changing condition, and you're left with your dick in your hand.

GMOs, while THEORETICALLY (And I stress this, since there's been no GM product brought to market that caused issue reliably.) capable of causing issue, allow us to address issues from year to year, without throwing out the diversity inherent in a species.


I'm not worried about genetically modified ingredients in beer, because the alcohol will kill the GM cooties.  As for the rest, the biggest danger by far is allowing any substantial chunk of our food technology to "belong" to a corporation (Monsanto, Simplot, etc).
 
2013-08-04 08:01:01 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I wouldn't assume that 'all natural' meant no-GMO.


I would. That's pretty much the only think it can mean.
 
2013-08-04 08:01:02 PM  

jaytkay: Kinek: I'd like to know when being an expert in a field made you unqualified to speak about a subject?

When you take a position contrary to evidence you are unqualified.

Sorry to see you do not know that. Good luck in life. You need it.


You need to y'know. Make an argument. Not insult me and then run off without backing it up with an argument.
 
2013-08-04 08:08:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Kinek:There are legitimate reasons to dislike Monsanto (Though if you bring up suing farmers, I will have to give you a whole other paragraph on why your understanding of Schmeiser and Bowman is tinted by NaturalNews spin.) The safety of GMOs is not among those legitimate reasons.

I don't like the Bowman ruling, but I understand why the court ruled as it did.  I think Bowman was a bad test case because he had previously signed a contract with Monsanto not to re-plant seeds from his harvests.

What would have happened if it had been a farmer who had never signed a contract with Monsanto who had purchased the bulk soybeans (intended for feed) and decided to plant them instead?  Could Monsanto have done anything since there was never any contract between them?   If the Bowman ruling essentially means that a farmer can't buy seeds and do whatever the fark he wants with them (as long as he doesn't enter into any contract when purchasing those seeds when he buys them) then I think the outrage over the case is entirely justified.


One of the conditions of those silo seeds is that you have to sign a contract with them to not plant the seeds, because they in turn signed a contract with Monsanto. At least from what I understand about politics that go around the silos.

The Bowman ruling is less interesting if you realize that cultivar protection has been around since the 1930s. It just used to be harder to prove, and honestly, less convenient to sue. You could hardly ever (Except in Hort cases), prove that someone stole your cultivar, because what if that gene showed up independently, etc, etc. Now though, in an environment where sequencing is getting cheaper and cheaper, effects of the cultivar protection laws are showing up. You can definitively say someone stole a cultivar without paying for use. This isn't a new law, it's just one that's being enforced now because it can be enforced now.

Interesting story related to that. THere's someone in an adjacent department to mine working on sequencing marijuana, not for breeding purposes, but by using genetic markers, you can actually trace supply lines, who got what strain from who, and tie everyone up into a conspiracy charge. Disgusting politics, but shows the power of genetics in proving cases.
 
2013-08-04 08:11:32 PM  

Kinek: You need to y'know. Make an argument. Not insult me and then run off without backing it up with an argument.


Nice suit and tie you got there!

www.extension.iastate.edu
 
2013-08-04 08:12:08 PM  

Lochsteppe: Kinek: jaytkay: FloydA: Agriculture is a form of genetic modification.   All of our plant and animal domesticates are "genetically modified" from their wild relatives

I can understand her point that foods should be properly labeled, but I don't get the fear of GMOs.

The claim that selective breeding = GMO  is disingenuous. The possibilities for unexpected negative consequences are immensely worse.

With selective breeding you get small quantities of change over a long period of time.

With GMO you could put a new trait in almost the entire US corn crop in one year.

Ahahahahaha. No. Selective breeding comes with its own downfalls. Let me give you an example.

Barley, my pet crop, has been backed into a corner evolutionarily due to malt producers. Beer companies wanted a large number of genes fixed (Read as inbred), which has led barley, at least in the US, to be the equivalent of the inbred backwoods cast of Deliverance. As it stands now, we're having to reach all the way back to ancestors to pull in any kind of diversity. If the selective process had been done with GM techniques, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So, in short. Selective breeding, because it takes so long, leaves you with a product that cannot change easily to changing condition, and you're left with your dick in your hand.

GMOs, while THEORETICALLY (And I stress this, since there's been no GM product brought to market that caused issue reliably.) capable of causing issue, allow us to address issues from year to year, without throwing out the diversity inherent in a species.

I'm not worried about genetically modified ingredients in beer, because the alcohol will kill the GM cooties.  As for the rest, the biggest danger by far is allowing any substantial chunk of our food technology to "belong" to a corporation (Monsanto, Simplot, etc).


Agreed. I for one would like to see the public sector pick up the slack for handling this kind of stuff, but judging from my budget, salary, and funding opportunities, the public dropped the ball on investing into this. So, it's up to Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, et al, to pick up the slack, pull the profits, and advance the science. I would dearly love it if I could stay in public work and make a decent living.
 
2013-08-04 08:12:34 PM  

PleaseHamletDon'tHurtEm: We know a remote farm in Lincolnshire, where Mrs. Buckley lives.  Every July, peas grow there.


Can you emphasize a bit "in"? "In July."
 
2013-08-04 08:14:50 PM  

jaytkay: Kinek: You need to y'know. Make an argument. Not insult me and then run off without backing it up with an argument.

Nice suit and tie you got there!

[www.extension.iastate.edu image 850x666]


You do understand that I work on a USDA funded crop, funded by the government, and at a public university, right? You're also terrible at ad hominem.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report