GMO's How much do we really know?

Remove all ads!

As far as i can remember the EU is not importing any GMO material (with most known the soya). This has caused some tensions between US (the major supplier and consumer of GMO soya, with the EU.
Furthermore in the laws of EU each food company is obliged to write on the package of their product if and which and in what percentage per volume has a GMO substance been used. But in reality this law has not been accepted yet by every country that belongs in EU.
Anyway the fact is that these stuff are way too risky and have little similarities with

The mixing of varieties is a totally different issue than modifying the genetic code of the plant to make more fertile or more resistant to vermin or to sun or whatever.
BTA are you trying to convince me that you put the scientists, who are capable of playing God the last twenty or so years, in the same level with mother nature? Please i don't think they can stand a comparison.

 

Actually crossbreding strains of plants to make them more resistant, produce bigger yields, etc, alters its genetic makeup. We've been doing it for thousands of years, creating new species, even ones that can't easily reproduce if at all outside of our help. This is nothing new.

 

We have only been doing the push start button - see outcome procedure. But GM is a whole different issue. When you are perfoming the modification is a little different than just crossing together to branches or fertilize one with the other.
And to this procedure like it or not humans lack not only experience but also knowledge, since we have not been able so far to fully understand and decoded.
Therefore i have to say that i am sorry BTA but this is not true

You can check it but the whole issue of embedding is still having dark unknown corners, and as i said mother nature is the best breeder of all noone else.
I won't say to you don't eat GM food, after all science does needs test animals

 

OH yes, mother nature is the best breeder, if you count, billions upon billions of failed starts the best breeder. Mother nature is totally random about her improvements so I hardly doubt she is the best breeder. NOt saying we will be any better but who knows? Also you explained GM foods exactly. Push start button, see outcome. Which is exactly the same as crossbreeding. There are potential dangers here I totally admit, but there is no bogeyman.

 

Mother Nature also made these things called viruses. Remarkably random genetic engineers, these little buggers. They're all natural, mutate every day, and mess with host genomes. Incredibly dangerous things, but we are still here.

 

Yes, despite all the viruses and other problems in nature, despite the changes that take place through natural selection, or even husbandry and agriculture, none of those things ever did in all that time anywhere near as much damage as GMO's can. Nor did they have such diverse and harmful side-effects. Just as our inteference with farming did so much harm compared to what nature handled before it.

Even the black plague it is supposed was originated by the interference of meddling men.

But the problem here, I feel, is largely ethical.

Balance in all things. Above all, Truth, is paramount. Why does science pretend this is not so.

Should we fall like Atlantis?

 

Ummm Manus, the black plauge had nothing to do with mankind. The reason why it was so bad was our fault though since people crammed together in cities made it spread easier enspecially since we didn't know how it spread. And you talk about how nothing bvefore could ever cause as much damage as GMO's can. Tell that to the those who suffered from the plauge or spanish flu. Virus's that jump species literally have the potential to wipe out an entire species. You mention all these horrible side effects yet somehow they haven't destroyed us yet. Farming period radically changes the enviroment and upsets a balance, so I guess we should stop farming and let millions if not billions die since if not for the "damnable" farming techniques of the 20th century we would not be able to feed nearly enough people. As for Nature's so called balance, it doesn't exist. Nature holds a balance only temporarily until a new creature moves in or evolves and then everything is shifted and sometimes even whole species are wiped out and a new balance is found. Your blindingly ideallic view of nature as kind and gentle is so far from the truth it isn't even funny. Nature does not believe in balance in all things but we should? Why does science ignore the truth? I guess scientists should be like priests and worship nature and not study or look for answers (re: truth) like they do every day.

And comparing us to a mythical island doesn't help your arguement either.

 

Well Jschild, the black plague in itself was not engineered by mankind, if you think that is what I meant. But the reasons it was able to spread and kill so much actually had a lot to do with our farming methods, both of agriculture and animals.

I do actually know what I am talking about as I sudied this as part of a history course in university. If you want I can dig through my notes for exact details, but I really don't think that is necessary.

Of course, you are correct that no-one truly knows what caused the black-plague, or how it became so drasticly uncontained. There are only theories. Which is why I used the words 'it is supposed' as in 'it is theorised'.

And no, I never implied nature was gentle, especially not as you would use the word. Only that it was gradual and within balance. Yes, as much as you may not want to admit it, death is a vital part of that balance.

Tell me how many species have died of their own accord, and in what time-frame, and then you tell me how many have died as a result of man's recent actions.

And yes, we should believe in truth and balance becasue we are able to think, it is the nature of the universe, and it is our purpose.

Scientists may belive they are looking for the truth but more often then not they ignore whatever is right in front of their eyes. This even applies to scientific theories themselves. Tell me how many are dismissed out of hand by the scientific community only to be proved right a decade or so later? The extent to which this is applied to those things outside of one's own particular field of study can be astronomical.

The fact is, the truth is obtainable to any of those who wish to sek it. Many of those in the scientific community simply are not ready. When you know more of any of these matters, let alone something as ultimately insignifigant as Atlantis, we shall talk again.

 

Manus, the black plague was a bacterium carried primarily by rats, and becasue of poor living conditions in cities the diseases florished. They know exactly what caused the black plague and how it spread and it had nothing to do with agriculture. It had to do with people being crammed on top of each other in small areas and no understanding of what was carrying the disease. All this is well documented and well known. Millions of species if not billions have been wiped out by nature. Man has not even came close to what nature has done though unfortantly we have been much more efficent at it. And while nature can be gradual she can be brutally quick and violent. (aka spanish flu, over 20 million people dead in a few years).
You still have never explained why crossbreeding a plant and as you said, push start - see outcome is any different than inserting a gene, pushing start and seeing the outcome. We should be caoutious yes, but we shouldn't hide in caves terrified of progress either.

 

But the problem is that we aren't cautious, the trust in science is too blind at the moment. They don't really use the start-check method. What they do is start-check for desired effect, but they don't look enough at the negative side-effects because they are unpredictable. Like I said in an earlier post, the scientist know what the gene-code does on its own but not what side-effects come from the interaction with the rest of the genetic code of the subject. And since they don't know what to look for or what to expect, they can't prove that their tempering isn't harmful.

I'm not saying genetic engineering is bad, only that it is too early to release it on the customers, especially without warning them of what they're buying. The customer should be informed so that he can decide for himself if he's ready to serve as test-bunny.

 

Manus, GM crops are not even within 3 million light years of viruses in terms of potential danger. No, really. List the serious adverse effects GM crops have caused. Compare this with something like HIV. Like Jschild already said, viruses can also jump species. Whole ecosystems are damaged by these things. Forests get wiped out. Labelling of products and keeping GMOs in the lab are a non-issue, it should be mandatory. But, to suggest that GM crops can have the same catastrophic effects as Spanish Flu or even ebola is just absurd. Viruses were made by Nature for the destruction of species, to potentiate evolution on a grand scale. GM crops may be able to last the winter.