The real dangerous place...

[Caliban]

One certainty. Within the next thirty years I will have probably turned to leaf litter, so

[Woodsman]

One certainty. Within the next thirty years I will have probably turned to leaf litter, so

Nothing gives us more faith in the species we belong to than the don't give a fuck-0-meter registering a blistering 0.

[el3so]

"gut flora"

toilet

plumbing

pipe dream of utopian health

smelly farts

earlier death

but then we will become different again and deal with it.

Kinda like that human centipede movie?

[friendlyskies]

I view GMO dangers the same way I view global warming. It doesn't take much effort to adapt to the possibility that eating genetically modified foods and living on the shore of a flood-prone body of water is an unnecessary risk. Sure. Maybe GMO is fine. But I choose not to eat it unless I'm super hungry and there's not other choice, or someone is serving it and it would be rude to say no. I'm sure as fuck not going to go out and buy a regular loaf of Roman Meal if I've got 35¢ extra to buy organic, though.

The thing is, yes, GMO is very different from traditional genetic manipulation. Radiation for spontaneous mutations and nonsexual crosses introduce new genes, which can't easily be tested in all markets. One gene very rarely causes one phenotypic trait, the neat ratios of Mendel's peas are famous precisely because it's an unusually simple and obvious example of genetic expression. More often, they work together in all sorts of different ways, and their expression can be affected by environmental factors. For instance, say you had GMO corn with a gene derived from a pig, which causes more sugar to collect in the grain - in Iowa. Plant the same corn in the high desert, it might begin synthesis of a protective wax to help the plant retain water. This might mimic something the new gene did for the pig... say, producing some component of cholesterol. That component might make humans more likely to have heart attacks, if they regularly eat this corn. And so on.

Yeah, whatever. It's all speculative. Go ahead and eat GMO corn, I won't stop you. I don't want to eat it though, and I do everything I can to avoid it. I do wish they were forced to label it, that would make everything sooooo much easier.

[Kurt]

Usually the pro-GMO lobby objects to products that do not contain GMO stuff to label that they do not.

In the 80's the companies that sold irradiated food tried to get a law passed that would prevent food not irradiated from saying so.

Do you object to ug99 GMO resistant wheat?

[Athena]

Twice in my life I thought I'd been drugged. Once I was hydrating with non-alcohol beer getting ready to head out to hit some mountain biking trails. I felt off, dizzy, my perception had changed, something was not right. Turned out I had picked up a case of extra boozy Molson Export instead of the intended NA beer. The other time, I was walking along a beach in Fiji and happened upon a fish standing on a boulder. I happened to have taken "The Ancestor's Tale" along to read on the trip, and I figured I was hallucinating. Turns out I was not.

This is the long way to get to my point, but, once you see a fish just standing around on a rock it's easy to believe anything is possible in nature without any primitive human intervention. So what if we figured out how to fuse an arctic fish with a tomato and call it food? I say let them eat corn.

[Woodsman]

Do you object to ug99 GMO resistant wheat?

I object to any GMO outside of a strictly confined laboratory environment.

GMOs used as food are equivalent to infectious substances and should be treated as such pathogens.

Of course these are not pathogens that cause quick death because quick death has a limited financial value.

GMOs have a huge financial value which essentially guarantee reliance on "Western medicine" (aka doctors who prescribe pharmaceuticals to treat the symptom of the illness).

Just because there is a pathogen that kills wheat does not mean some company should be able to change the genetic structure of wheat in such a way as to make it resistant to that pathogen. There is a basis for that pathogen and an effect that is necessary in the ecology of that system associated with it.

Humans are smart, but the arrogance outweighs the intelligence. Humans are in no way, shape or form ready to take on the role that mutations play by experimenting with gene insertion every time a pathogen is found for a certain organism.

Ultimately, they will cause PROFOUND problems as they are currently but the POLITICS is trumping SCIENCE now and until SCIENCE gets funded equally to industry pet projects that are being called science, that information will be lacking in great detail.

[Woodsman]

I view GMO dangers the same way I view global warming.

There are some similarities, except that global warming is caused by natural phenomenon to a great extent. Creating GMOs has absolutely nothing to do with any natural phenomenon unless you consider the arrogance of humans being a fairly natural phenomenon, and of that I am not sure I could disagree.

For instance, say you had GMO corn with a gene derived from a pig, which causes more sugar to collect in the grain - in Iowa. Plant the same corn in the high desert, it might begin synthesis of a protective wax to help the plant retain water. This might mimic something the new gene did for the pig... say, producing some component of cholesterol. That component might make humans more likely to have heart attacks, if they regularly eat this corn. And so on.

Yeah, whatever. It's all speculative. Go ahead and eat GMO corn, I won't stop you. I don't want to eat it though, and I do everything I can to avoid it. I do wish they were forced to label it, that would make everything sooooo much easier.

That is a very good example. A REAL WORLD example of what is going on now is that GMO corn got into the fields in Southern Mexico where the heirloom varieties of corn do extremely well in the local soils The GMO corn does very lousy on rich soils because it is not designed to grow without a high level of artificial inputs. The GMO corn was starting to hybridize with the native Mexican corn and now Mexican farmers have to pull the stalks that have a specific defect on them which is known to occur on GMO hybridized corn. They do not know if this stops the hybridization completely. The bottom line is that this GMO corn is threatening the natural genotype of corn raised and bred to be highly productive on local soils through hybridization.

Take away all the inputs of what is required to raise GMO (much of this petroleum based - e.g. limited lifespan from the non-renewable energy) coupled with the hybridization to allow for a poorer, less productive plant on natural fertile soils and what you have done is lowered the natural carrying capacity of human kind if it is assumed that humans will continue to use corn after conventional fossil fuels are history (this won't last forever).

I also wish for labeling. UK has it. France won't even allow GMOs in their country. That is an informed decision. Very little in the USA is informed at all. Transparency is a joke in this country, but there are many subcultures in the background trying hard to make it happen.

Monsanto is hell-bent on completely destroying the natural world through their arrogance and there are plenty of people out there without the knowledge of how these natural systems work to let them do it.

Ultimately, we 100% rely on the natural world. Ask those from Anniston Alabama or Winfield WV if they think Monsanto ought to be in control of managing our agricultural system.

Monsanto isn't the only one, either - Pioneer, Dow, and others are all guilty of this B.S. as is the USDA and FDA who are nothing more than shell agencies set up to help support these sick slimy scumbag companies.

[Woodsman]

Original judge comes down with a case of Lou Gerhig's disease.
+
New judge expands "gag order" to lawyers against Monsanto.

=Great fodder for a plausible conspiracy theory

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/1c151dff11374ac4b58c63085816ccc7/WV--Monsanto-Lawsuit/

[Woodsman]

And in other interesting news...Dow tries to get EPA to lift the 2.4D ban because they realize roundup (glyphosate) is worse than 2,4D (even though they are both toxic to humans).

(NaturalNews) Residents of a small West Virginia town near a Monsanto chemical production plant have filed a class action lawsuit against the agri-giant for pollution caused by the decades-long production of 2,4,5-T, a chemical compound that represents about half of the infamous Agent Orange herbicide. At the very same time, the Dow Chemical Company is seeking government deregulation of a new genetically-modified (GM) variety of corn resistant to 2,4-D, the other half of Agent Orange.

Agent Orange is the same herbicide chemical weapon that the US government sprayed over agricultural land in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and that has been banned since the 1970s. Nearly a half million people were killed, and another half million children born with birth defects, as a result of the mass murder sprayings conducted by the US government and military.

But tens of thousands of Americans have also suffered from exposure to Agent Orange chemicals as well, particularly those living in Nitro, WV, where Monsanto had been producing the carcinogenic chemicals for many decades. More than 80,000 local residents are included in a class action lawsuit against Monsanto, which highlights the cancer-causing effects of exposure to 2,4,5-T.

However, while this lawsuit takes shape, the Dow Chemical Company, another purveyor of GMOs and their toxic herbicides and pesticides, is petitioning the government to deregulate a new variety of GM corn known as DAS-40278-9, which has a built-in resistance to 2,4-D. This means, of course, that the company will need to spray 2,4-D on the crops in order for them to grow, which would require the EPA to lift its ban on the chemical (http://www.naturalnews.com/034492_D...).

2,4-D is said to be the less lethal portion of Agent Orange, and yet it is known to cause very serious health problems, including abdominal cavity bleeding and increased mortality in pregnant rats. The chemical is also linked to causing serious birth defects, organ damage, neurological dysfunction, and infertility (http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profile...).

With both this and the lawsuit in mind, it is absolutely ludicrous that Dow is now seeking permission to douse the American agricultural landscape in these very same Agent Orange chemicals. Perhaps the company simply thinks nobody is paying attention and that it will quietly get away with this little scheme by keeping it quiet -- if so, it is sadly mistaken.

Sources for this article include:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034564_Monsa ... z1iWGsZAO3

http://www.naturalnews.com/034564_Monsanto_Agent_Orange_class_action_lawsuit.html

[el3so]

once you see a fish just standing around on a rock it's easy to believe anything is possible in nature without any primitive human intervention.

That statement can only be true if "anything" would exclude creating a fish-human crossbreed.

And yes, gene-splicing would be one of many possible techniques.

[Sri Lanky]

Maybe humans can mutate the arrogance out of themselves but it would be better if natural selection took care of that.
Extinction would drive the point home...ya think?

[Woodsman]

Hell it might! The VIPs of the world built that seed bank up North for a reason! They've planned carefully for what is coming.

[flipflop]

Mach award for the QUAD-roop-ular application of consecutive posts on this page

Keep up

Cheers

[LechoZX]

Quit yer bitchin'. Life expectancies have never been higher and the food is killing people? Even if you believe that, people are either going to die from eating bad food or not eating any food so take your pick.