It hurts by destroying genetic diversity. GM crops are cross-polluting with regular crops and changing them. Soon, other crops will vanish.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Do you mean cross-pollinating?

It doesn't destroy genetic diversity. The only crops which vanish are the ones whose genetic structure is inferior to that of the superior, modified crop. Different species naturally die out all the time if they cannot compete with other species which are stronger - the difference with GM crops is that the ones which survive are not only stronger but they're also more nutritious for us. This is why GM is a good thing.

And yes, the US *could* feed the Third World without GM crops, but if we're going to be realists about it, they're not going to. GM provides the possibility for relieving third world hunger without having to wistfully wonder if the US might, one day, decide to share its wealth. It is you who pipe dreams if you seriously think the USA will ever sacrifice its own supplies to alleviate world hunger. Those of us who uphold GM, however, are being realistic.

O.K., I'm re-reading the article spanks posted the link to, and I'm not sure where the destruction of genetic diversity comes in... Wild crops cross-pollinate all the time. So far they haven't melded into one omni-crop.

The *real* danger as I see it is two-fold:

1) Crops modified to produce pharmeceuticals cross-pollinate with food crops, and Jr. gets unprescribed meds with his morning corn flakes. This risk seems managable. But so did Jurassic Park.

2) Crops modified to produce sterile seed cross-pollinate with normal crops and reduce the viability of the next generation. The 2nd generation sterile seed thing is one that some corps like Monsato have tried in order to bleed customers in perpetuity (or maintain control of thier product, depending how you look at it). The big head-scratcher here is why anyone would want to buy seed that doesn't function as seed in the first place. Add in fears of contaminating viable crops, and I think this marketing strategy is pretty well doomed.

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

Only in a "well, duh but I was trying to be funny again" way.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

It doesn't destroy genetic diversity. The only crops which vanish are the ones whose genetic structure is inferior to that of the superior, modified crop. Different species naturally die out all the time if they cannot compete with other species which are stronger - the difference with GM crops is that the ones which survive are not only stronger but they're also more nutritious for us. This is why GM is a good thing.

That's a nice bedtime story. Dollars to mutant donuts it doesn't work out that way.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

The basic premise of survival of the fitest is that stronger genes survive. You still aren't explaining the logic behind it hurting people (through making them starve somehow I think is what you were saying). It only sounds like witchcraft when you know nothing about it. Like you. Knowing nothing. About it.

We've already wiped or changed the course of a butt load of species on earth, just go with the flow, man.

Now you're against mutants. Did X-2 teach you nothing?

Racist.

Also mutation happens in a state of nature. It is the keystone of evolution. And unless you believe in GOD (which I know you don't Spankling) the mutations are by accident. So how is an intentional mutation worse than an unintentional one?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Very very slowly.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Researchers never finding a fair amount of "missing links" bridging any two species led theorists to attach a "rider" to the theory of evolution. It says evolution most likely happens all at once (in terms of a new, better species suddenly blooming and flourishing. This idea has a name but I forget what it is, maybe a biology major can help me out.

Species tend to stay the same for a long time, evolutional leaps (supposedly) happen all at once.

I'd be more worried about what happens to your food after it is born, in terms of chemicals or anything else put into them which could cause harm to people. (You know like prions which drift into your brain and then begin to dissolve it).

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

Researchers never finding a fair amount of "missing links" bridging any two species led theorists to attach a "rider" to the theory of evolution. It says evolution most likely happens all at once (in terms of a new, better species suddenly blooming and flourishing. This idea has a name but I forget what it is, maybe a biology major can help me out.

Species tend to stay the same for a long time, evolutional leaps (supposedly) happen all at once.

I'd be more worried about what happens to your food after it is born, in terms of chemicals or anything else put into them which could cause harm to people. (You know like prions which drift into your brain and then begin to dissolve it).

---

Actually, its greed that destroys genetic diversity in crops. In the orient, they used to grow many many different species of rice (many of which were better for you), but now, due to the fact that the western world really only liked 4 of the varieties of rice, most stopped growing the rest for the production of those 4 major varieties to sell to the western world. ::)

---
I will rate you hard, and unendingly.

There's more wheat than would be in a state of nature REGARDLESS of GM precisely because people want to eat it, and therefore cultivate it. How can you complain about one form of human intervention (growing a crop with a certain desired set of genes) and not another (agricultre)? I still remain confused about why this "GM" issue is attached with the liberal agenda.

Maybe because saying you "eat organic" gives you a small, fragile boner around your liberal comrades.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

That last post was misguided on all possible levels. Very makkish.

Of course big agrobusiness is another problem. But greed has always been the underlying problem with people starving. GM aint gonna fix that.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

How is it misguided? Misguided in that it does not mindlessly agree with an ideology's point-of-view with no kind of forethought?

How does GM relate to big business? Especially if you're so concerned about the plants cross-breeding. Then everyone would have access to them, not just big business.

Are you saying making a profit should be illegal? I really don't get what you are driving at. I never said GM would cure starvation, I said there's no reason to be biased against it.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

On the point of eating organic, I'm surprised that you, Spankling, of all people, have not seen through the veil of outrageous profit-making that the so-called "organic food" industry indulges in. Organic food is overpriced and there's no reason to believe it's any better or worse than other fruit & veg available at your local supermarket. All that differentiates it is a larger price tag and pretty packaging. I'm with Makk on this one: the only reason for buying "organic" is to brag to your friends (with or without the boner).

Organic food is an offshoot of the whole "eurgh, GM food!" reaction which people like yourself seem to suffer (unduly) from. It taps into that belief that GM food is BAD and natural food is GOOD without so much as an argument to ground itself on. You're lining the pockets of another business just because you believe 'organic' sounds like a good prefix to have in front of each item of food you buy.

Only in a "well, duh but I was trying to be funny again" way.

Oh, I thought you'd just got it wrong. Silly old me.

By anyone's standard, stem cell research is "fucking with nature" as much as GM. But I have a suspicion you support it.

[Click to view comic: 'Mark of Excrements']

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

You're missing the point. The boner is crucial.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Engine blocks are good for your colon! ::)

---
I will rate you hard, and unendingly.

Fine. Eat raid-laced radioactive turd sandwiches for all I care.

And yes, organic cost a butt-load. That's because it isn't as heavily subsidized as poisoned food.

And if I can get more boners from eating healthy then good for me.

You silly tumor fields.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Genes aren't radioactive.

(Radiation did wake up Godzilla though)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

And this is where I came in.
*stops eating out Ms. Organic, drops the movie popcorn (extra snot-butter) and leaves the picture *

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Butter isn't all that good for you either mister health nut.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

It's good to see Spankling concede defeat on an issue.

The reason that GM crops cross-pollinating with neighboring old-fashioned ones is "bad" is because the owner of the patent on the GM crop can then demand royalties from the neighboring farmer. There are already lawsuits being brought on this principle.

And so far I see no evidence that any of you knows dick about evolution or has any business talking about it without some background reading. At least see what professional biologists have to say about diversity and evolution vis-a-vis GM crops before you go spouting some Sci-Fi Channel version of Darwin.

Could be I missed the poster who got the evolution right, because I'm pretty much skimming here.

---
What others say about boorite!