Isn't the topic "I Eat Organic" and the hoopla was about GM foods?

Oh I do. I just like to see people back up their claims with some sources if I'm going to consider their stance valid. That's what people are supposed to do when having a debate. It doesn't mean I think another's opinion isn't valid, but it's hard to think of another's view as more than uneducated ranting when they don't provide sources to the claim. I showed you mine, now you show me yours. Call me old fashioned.

Most of these are about GM foods that include Jellyfish - potatoes that glow when they need water. But there is more fun readng as well. This wasn't research, just a quick look. I recognised some artlices from reading them when they came out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/specials/sheffield_99/446837.stm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/glowingpotato.cfm
http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/1/sugar_jellyfish.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=20512900
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16317

Fun quote from that last one...
"GM soy-based infant formula has raised levels of estrogen, and today more than 1 percent of 3-year-old U.S. girls have pubic hair. Any links? "

But I'll still show you mine if you show me yours ivy (so long as it doesn't glow)!

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

Thanks for showing sources. Not only does it make me believe you know something about this, but it's certainly going to be a great help to my research project as well.

"He said: 'These "watchers" are planted at the same time as the crop in the same field but in a different area and regularly monitored for signs of dehydration. He added that because potatoes are tubers they do not cross fertilise using flower pollination and therefore would not infect other plants. "
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/glowingpotato.cfm

Oh dear. I can't believe I overlooked plant biology so easily that it took Spankling to remind me that any tuber plant can't cross-pollinate and therefore infect the rest of the planet with their evilness!

One thing that amuses me is the panic over human health if we eat plants with certain genes in them. I eat a potato. It digests in my stomach. Then I shit it out. I eat a jellyfish. It digests in my stomach. Then I shit it out.

The only problem with animal genes in crops is people keeping kosher and the vegans and vegetarians of the world trying to keep out the animal products. Though if they can afford to eat vegan and veggie, then I'm sure they can afford to eat organic.

By the way, that quotation I used is still correct about no GM foods with animal genes being commercially available.

"Experiments so far have been confined to greenhouses and it will be about six years before the glowing potatoes go on sale. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/specials/sheffield_99/446837.stm

i.e. A lot of time to continue research and work on the issue and do more testing.

"Professor Leifert said: "It is another example of the completely unpredictable nature of genetic transformation. By putting the jellyfish gene into sugar cane you could change the toxicity spectrum in the plant."
"This could change the toxins the plant produces to defend itself from insects into toxins that could potentially harm consumers.""
http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/1/sugar_jellyfish.htm

What? They think researchers haven't thought of this? They think scientists wake up one day and announce to the world that they're going to do something radical on a controversial topic? People are so naive. Research goes on long before the public ever hears about it. First, scientists have to make sure their goal is successful. Second, they have to make sure there isn't immediate adverse effects (it's called "testing"). Third, scientists aren't stupid. They know that the minute they put something out there, even if it's just an announcement, some violent assholes are gonna try to take matters into their own hands. Whether it's bombing animal testing labs, destroying crops, or vandalizing the home of Greenwalt, scientists must get as much as possible completed or risk losing it all before it starts.

"Existing methods for keeping track of inserted genes involve taking samples of plant tissue back to the laboratory for lengthy analysis. Stewart believes that the gene for GFP could be the most practical method yet for checking whether genes inserted into crop plants spread. Escaped genes could cause problems, for example, if a gene to make crops resistant to herbicides spread to weeds."
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=20512900

This is a very responsible approach. With all the panic, people haven't bothered to think that the scientists are taking steps to be responsible in their research. Scientists aren't stupid. They didn't get to their position by being irresponsible idiots. A few might fall through the cracks, but they get cut off fairly quickly.

"Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potato is engineered to produce the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Bt kills the Colorado potato beetle but it is also in every one of the New Leaf Superior's cells. Thus, it is legally registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a pesticide, not a food . . . and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot regulate the New Leaf Superior potato because the FDA does not have the authority to regulate pesticides."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

Plants naturally produce toxins and pesticides to ward off insects. Plants we've been eating since we've been growing. Sorry, not gonna get all chilled over the thought of my potatoes being toxic.

Fucking hell, if the plant is producing poison it'll never even be submitted to the FDA for approval, let alone appear on your store shelf tomorrow. You know how long it takes for beneficial medicines to pass their approval? The FDA can now ban dietary supplements and insist Vitamin C doesn't prevent any disease despite historical use for the obvious. Do you think they're going to let something toxic through? Child.

"Scientists have discovered that the aforementioned Bt may produce allergies in people. A July 1999 study of Ohio crop pickers and handlers shows that Bt "can provoke immunological changes indicative of a developing allergy. With long-term exposure, affected individuals may develop asthma or other serious allergic reactions.""
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

As if this is a new thing brought on only by GM foods? People develop allergies all the time. After years of being able to go through so-called "allergy season" with a smirk at people doped up on various antihistamines, I've managed to develop a dust allergy. Others spend half their life eating shellfish only to find themselves allegic the next day. It has nothing to do with GM foods.

"Genetic engineers use antibiotic "markers" in almost every GM organism to indicate that the organism has been successfully engineered. These markers may play a role in the diminishing efficacy of antibiotics against diseases."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

They use them to identify what's been modified. So we can track them. Oh my god! Is that the scientists being responsible!? (/sarcasm)

Seriously, it's ridiculous to lay the diminishing ability of antibiotics on GM foods. Antibiotics are failing because of overuse in hospitals and clinics. When people have a viral lung or viral throat infection, antibiotics have always been prescribed even though they don't do a damned thing. In fact, studies show they do more harm than good. That's why doctors finally came to their senses, too late, and stopped prescribing them for viral infections. Even minor bacterial ear infections won't get antibiotics if the doctor has any common sense at all.

"Scientists warn that once the GM organisms and their altered genes are released into nature, they may spread widely. Poisons, mutagens, and carcinogens might be created in harmful concentrations."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

Pure speculation. Without evidence backing up these worries, it's not relevant.

"English Nature, Britain's chief conservation agency, believes GM farming will lead to a new generation of herbicide-resistant crops, which could devastate the countryside. Dr. Brian Johnson, a co-author of the English Nature report, said: "If you hit them with most of the conventional herbicides they just smile at you. They certainly don't die.""
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

Why would we be spraying herbicide on food crops? Oh right, that would be anti-GM people destroying those evil food crops.

Oh no! We can't kill them with herbicide! Then do some fucking work in your life. If you don't want to burn the damned field as farmers have done since forever to plant anew, then dig the damned things up. Lazy.

"GM soy-based infant formula has raised levels of estrogen, and today more than 1 percent of three-year-old U.S. girls have pubic hair. Any links?"
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

Any evidence?

"Scientists believe GM crops may be deadly to wildlife (i.e. the Monarch butterfly) and may result in increased pesticide pollution and soil damage, genetic contamination of the environment, and risks to biodiversity."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

More speculation.

"When a gene from the Brazil nut was inserted into a soy bean it appeared that it unexpectedly caused strong allergic reactions in people allergic to nuts who never had any problems formerly in eating soy products.(Nordlee, J.A. et al. The New England Journal of Medicine 14: 688–728; 1996)."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

Well, DUH! They're fucking NUTS!

By the way, Spankling, I'd stay away form Brazil nuts if I were you. They're rather radioactive thanks to radium in the soil.

Oh wait. That's natural. Silly me.

"When a yeast was manipulated for increased fermentation there was an unexpected production of a metabolite (methyl-glyoxal) in toxic and mutagenic concentrations. (Inose, T. Murata, K. Int. J. Food Science Tech. 30: 141–146, 1995)."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

So they had some problems with the yeast. Was it ever released? Are they still working on it? Did they fix the problem? Is it a problem that will occur no matter what manipulation is used?

"Tobacco plants were genetically engineered to produce the Gamma-linoleic acid. Instead the plant unexpectedly mainly produced the toxic octadecatetraenic acid. This substance does not exist in the natural tobacco plant. (Reddy SA, Thomas TL. Nature Biotechnology, vol 14, sid 639–642, May 1996)."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

Okay. Another unexpected result. But dollars to donuts it was discovered in the lab. Seriously, they don't release things without shitloads of testing. It's called "being responsible."

Oh yeah, caffeine doesn't exist in the natural agave plant, but is anyone banning my juice?

Yes, that is indeed a lame correlation. I'm just using similar tactics to my opponents.

"Hunger is a political problem that GM food will not and cannot solve. "
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071503MickeyZ/071503mickeyz.html

Bull fucking shit. It's. Just. Politics.

As I said in an earlier post, if you think the cause of global famine is politics then do something about that and THEN take care of GM foods. You can't be effective by focusing on too many issues at once.

Okay, time to show you mine. Again.

Meet my hero.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jan/borlaug/borlaug.htm

The Independant Biotechnology Advisory Council. Read.

Center for Global Food Issues: http://www.cgfi.org/

http://www.junkscience.com

21st Century Consumer War - speech: http://www.cgfi.org/materials/speeches/organic_utopia_vs_hyconservation.htm

World Food Prize "The World Food Prize is the foremost international award recognizing -- without regard to race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs -- the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world."
http://www.worldfoodprize.org/

Fortunately, those links have even more links to more stuff so you won't have to bounce all over. If I get free time I'll wander over to the Ag department and see if they'll part with copies of research that's open to the public.

Bedtime now.

quote:

---

Well, DUH! They're fucking NUTS!

By the way, Spankling, I'd stay away form Brazil nuts if I were you. They're rather radioactive thanks to radium in the soil.

Oh wait. That's natural. Silly me.

---

MakK: Acknowledged, wheat is not a predator. Now please acknowledge that salmon are predators, and that the salmon industry has produced gargantuan GM salmon. The prospect of their escape or release into the wild holds out possibilities at least as frightening as the silly super-cheetah example. I would also be grateful for an acknowledgement that such concerns are sound-- based in fact on ecology and evolutionary biology-- and not just knee-jerk shrieking about "Franken-foods."

I would also be grateful if you showed some understanding of co-evolution in ecosystems, and why introduced species (such as GMOs) therefore pose a threat to ecosystems. But I can only expect so much.

You say that ecosystems are dynamic, and that species die off. That is obviously true. But right now, biologists estimate the extinction rate at 100-1000 times the normal "background" rate, and the proximate cause is human activity. At this rate, we'll have added a sixth mass extinction episode to the "Big 5" within a couple of centuries. Is that what we want?

BTW, I was not looking for "the jargon phrase 'fit to survive,'" nor any jargon phrase. I was asking a simple question: Fittest for what? I asked what you meant by "survival of the fittest" not to show that I know more than you, but to see if you had the slightest goddamn inkling what you were talking about. I'll keep my conclusion on that to myself and instead ask you to look deep inside yourself and ask, fearlessly and searchingly, "Do I really know fuck about evolution? Do I even care? Or am I just tossing out scientific terms to sound good?"

I know I'm asking a lot here, but I'd be grateful.

---
What others say about boorite!

Ivy: I think your contention that climate killed off the Ice Age megafauna of North America is one pole of a controversy. On the other pole are people who say humans did it. There are also a bunch of other poles, which pretty much wrecks my bipolar metaphor. And there are eclectic theories that try to tie all these hypotheses together.

I think there's good circumstantial evidence for a human role in killing off the mammoth and the Megatherium. These creatures did survive for long periods in warm climes, and their demise coincides with the arrival of humans on the continent. Human dwelling sites are littered with the bones of these animals, along with groovy weapons and other tools for killing and flensing large animals. Wiping out certain animals is typical human behavior when arriving in new places, as we know from the natural history of New Guinea, Madagascar, the Galapagos, and countless islands in the South Pacific. And there's no reason to think a giant sloth or a mammoth, having evolved far from humans, would feel threatened by a small hairless ape with a stick. So they'd be relatively easy pickings, much like the poor Dodo, only a lot bigger and scarier.

I mean, I'd sure as hell eat a Megatherium.

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

Ivy: I think your contention that climate killed off the Ice Age megafauna of North America is one pole of a controversy. On the other pole are people who say humans did it. There are also a bunch of other poles, which pretty much wrecks my bipolar metaphor. And there are eclectic theories that try to tie all these hypotheses together.

I think there's good circumstantial evidence for a human role in killing off the mammoth and the Megatherium. These creatures did survive for long periods in warm climes, and their demise coincides with the arrival of humans on the continent. Human dwelling sites are littered with the bones of these animals, along with groovy weapons and other tools for killing and flensing large animals. Wiping out certain animals is typical human behavior when arriving in new places, as we know from the natural history of New Guinea, Madagascar, the Galapagos, and countless islands in the South Pacific. And there's no reason to think a giant sloth or a mammoth, having evolved far from humans, would feel threatened by a small hairless ape with a stick. So they'd be relatively easy pickings, much like the poor Dodo, only a lot bigger and scarier.

---

Tastes like chicken! CHICKEN!!

---
What others say about boorite!

Actually most everything gives of radiation. Like genetics, radioactivity doesn't = catastrophy.

Ok, but if they escape, over-eat their prey, they will begin to starve out. And bigger doesn't always mean a better predator. And the prey can adapt.

Yep. Chilling.

Bigger salmon could change the ecosystem, but in many different ways. I agree what you say is possible, but not inevitable or even likely. Humans have been introducing new species into new ecosystems for a long time.

Other species will adapt or die out. I guess my response is a big ol' SHRUG. We're already destroying habitats left and right, a new competing species just doesn't seem like it would register on the scale of dangers to ecosystems, when we're just flat out paving them over.

Isn't the current standing theory that all life came from a very few kinds of life? And if we've been through other extinction periods, didn't diversity rebound? Maybe extinction periods are more like clearing dead wood and less like an impending nuclear war like you seem to make it out to be. I agree that humanity is a big deal in terms of how rapidly we affect the earth. I don't see how the current exctinon epoch relates to this argument though. Also couldn't GM sciences increase biodiveristy if applied correctly? Aren't you people supposed to be for scientific advancement? I'm curious how you feel about stem cell research.

quote:

---

BTW, I was not looking for "the jargon phrase 'fit to survive,'" nor any jargon phrase. I was asking a simple question: Fittest for what? I asked what you meant by "survival of the fittest" not to show that I know more than you, but to see if you had the slightest goddamn inkling what you were talking about. I'll keep my conclusion on that to myself and instead ask you to look deep inside yourself and ask, fearlessly and searchingly, "Do I really know fuck about evolution? Do I even care? Or am I just tossing out scientific terms to sound good?"

I know I'm asking a lot here, but I'd be grateful.

---

Actually most everything gives of radiation. Like genetics, radioactivity doesn't = catastrophy.

Absolutely. Not counting background and cosmic radiation, we're exposed to a lot every day just being around people. Everyone gives it off. And people panic over the smallest amount. It amuses me.

I love Brazils. I started eating them because of the radiation actually.

Radiation and radioactives are my passion and my career. Can you tell?

As soon as we GM up a scientist with all the faculties of nature to balance... unbalance... and rebalance ecosystems then I'll buy the idea that we should keep fucking up the planet at this alarming rate.

These blind-eye-to-Armageddon arguments are gonna look pretty lame when the time comes.

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

But it still gives me wood to have ivy giving me paddy wacks. *wink* *wink*

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

We must bring balance to the force!

Oh, spanks, who the hell is , where did you get it from, and what happened to her nose?

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

MakK: Let's make out now.

---
What others say about boorite!

They're made out of people! PEEEEEEOPLE!

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

It sounds like boorite is turning a queer-eye to Armageddon.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

We must bring balance to the force!

Oh, spanks, who the hell is , where did you get it from, and what happened to her nose?

---

Graham, whose estate was picketed by demonstrators, hired guards to protect his precious vats of frozen sperm.

Regarding the stupid majority, smart minority comment.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

By the way Spankling, boorite, and anyone else I was arguing against...thanks very much for this debate. You guys made so many awesome rebuttal points that it's helped me to massively strengthen my arguments when I hand in my research project in a couple weeks.

No prob! Shove things up me anytime. Just turn in that paper before the damage to the world becomes obvious! *organ sting*

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

=]

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

While we were arguing about ecosystems and extinctions, a presidentially-appointed commission was dotting the i's on a 500 page assessment of the world's oceans, the most comprehensive report in 35 years. It came out just this Tuesday.

From yesterday's WashPost, p. A3, emphasis added:

quote:

---

"We believe the oceans are in trouble," said retired Adm. James D. Watkins, the commission's chairman. "We believe the nation needs a new strategy to handle these problems that have arisen."

...The authors also called for a change in mind-set to what it called "an ecosystem-based approach" to ocean management. "An ecosystem's survival may well be linked to the survival of all species that inhabit it," the commission wrote.

It also urged policymakers seeking to preserve dwindling fish stocks to look beyond a species-by-species effort "to a multispecies approach and, ultimately, to an ecosystem-based approach."

---

*puts head in hands and sighs*

This is the next thing we're going to see:

quote:

---

Bush denounces Cancer as 'Bad'!

Capitol Hill, Thursday (AP Reuters) - Reading a statement formulated by the Pentagon's top scientists, President Bush announced the culmination of a three-year research project begun at his entrance into office. "Cancer is bad", said Bush, "We've found that Cancer can kill. Cancer is a killer, and it killifies people with no regard to the killing. Cancer kills. The American people deserve to know this. Beware of Cancer, Americans. Beware."

Sources managed to obtain a copy of the conclusive report, and the report states in no uncertain terms that Cancer is definitely bad. There you have it.

---

Mikey, I think this report is significant in somewhat the same way as if a Jesse Helms commission issued a report on the lethality of smoking.

(For those of you who are not into obscure political facts, Jesse Helms is a five-term Republican ex-Senator from North Carolina, a tobacco-growing state.)

---
What others say about boorite!

Jesse Helms dries little boy skins on his roof.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Hm, that sounds familiar.

It doesn't specifically mention (much less condemn) GM salmon though.

So you think interspecies relations, and not over-fishing, is causing fish populations to dwindle? Because that was the context of my SHRUG. Why worry about species affecting other species so much when we're hauling boatload after boatload of fish out of the ocean. And again, this is putting species-endangerment in the context of the ecosystem, it's not placing blame on GM salmon.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008