The Big Picture: Feeding Edge
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Broccoli is a man made food, so I have heard.
I'm not particularly against genetically modified foods, but this was a little deceptive and this does not lend credence to the idea that you have a legitimate argument.
First of all, by doing DNA manipulations you can make far larger leaps than you can with selective breeding. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and is definitely more efficient, but can also allow for making a jump that, in its intermediary stage during selective breeding, may have been discovered to be a bad idea.
Furthermore, one of the dangers of genetically modified organisms is that, especially with plants, they can take over native populations of the unmodified version of the plants. And, since there are fewer varieties, there is more risk of a single disease, insect, or fungus wiping them all out. And even before it was done in labs, reckless genetic engineering has had some very bad results... like the africanized honeybee.
Finally, in Frankenstein he didn't just bring a dead body to life, and you know it. He created a living being out of many parts of other living beings and then promptly abandoned it ignoring all responsibility for the thing that he made. We have a word for that today, and it is "absent parent."
I'm not particularly against genetically modified foods, but this was a little deceptive and this does not lend credence to the idea that you have a legitimate argument.
First of all, by doing DNA manipulations you can make far larger leaps than you can with selective breeding. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and is definitely more efficient, but can also allow for making a jump that, in its intermediary stage during selective breeding, may have been discovered to be a bad idea.
Furthermore, one of the dangers of genetically modified organisms is that, especially with plants, they can take over native populations of the unmodified version of the plants. And, since there are fewer varieties, there is more risk of a single disease, insect, or fungus wiping them all out. And even before it was done in labs, reckless genetic engineering has had some very bad results... like the africanized honeybee.
Finally, in Frankenstein he didn't just bring a dead body to life, and you know it. He created a living being out of many parts of other living beings and then promptly abandoned it ignoring all responsibility for the thing that he made. We have a word for that today, and it is "absent parent."
Grafting is the process of taking pieces of some plants and grafting them to another. Citrus plants are often grafted onto another, but it can be done with any plant species. By doing this, it makes lemons bigger, it makes oranges with qualities of tangerines, and it is the only way that the most common banana species can be produced. Sometimes however, it can produce new species of plants, like the brocoflour. Why did I bring this up? Simply put: this practice disproves the claim that farmers never alter food products at the genetic level because that is the only place these changes can occur. There is nothing selective about this: this is straight up manipulation.Mikael Sanfors said:
Sorry to break it you, but Yes, selective breeding IS genetic engineering. You are manipulating the genes of an animal or plant by coercing the traits desired that you want out of it. Despite what orgainzations like greenpeace has been feeding the public, Monsanto is doing the exact came thing that farmers have been doing for centuries because the same principles are being used in both areas. Just because a guy in a lab coat does it does not make it more evil than it being done with guys with pitchforks.
I love how you try to make this debate into an fear based one by using the same talking points I've read people like you made on the Skeptoid forums, as well as many other places on the web. You do this because you are projecting your fears onto others, but because fear cause you to go against gm crops in the first place.
That is the heart of this debate. It is not about the "dangers" of Gm crops, but because you are afraid of big business taking over the world.
The greater reason why need to do this is because you are not prepared to answer an even bigger question. Are you going to tell the people in Africa they need to starve because you are afraid? Who gives you the right to say such a thing?
As for me, Yes, there are dangers in Genetic Modifying foods, but there are also dangers going across the street, turning on the car, taking your medicine, or eating at a fast food restuarant. Call me selfish, but I am more concerned with feeding starving and hungry people world wide with the most efficient way possible than some farfetched, unlikely, miniscule problem that may or may not happen.
If your ego is so fragile that you need the last word, feel free to respond. just be forewarned that I my self esteem is so great that I know any further debate would be pointless.
Few words of clarification here.
Defibrillation doesnt bring dead people back to life, thats a movie myth and common misconception. On the contrary, you should never ever shock a flatline, when heart is in asystole (its not "working"). It will only make things worse. In such cases adrenaline shots and heart massage is used.
Defibrillation is mainly used when heart is in arrhythmia (when the heart beat isnt regular). I know, I was defilbrillated once
Defibrillation doesnt bring dead people back to life, thats a movie myth and common misconception. On the contrary, you should never ever shock a flatline, when heart is in asystole (its not "working"). It will only make things worse. In such cases adrenaline shots and heart massage is used.
Defibrillation is mainly used when heart is in arrhythmia (when the heart beat isnt regular). I know, I was defilbrillated once
I remember this kinda stuff. It was always said to me that we should fear "frankenfood" because it was "going to have the adverse effects since science can never get it right." I.e. things like sterilization in both sexes, development/suffering of physical deformities (blindness, you'd lose some fingers, etc), and the big one was that you would be succeptable to new diseases or the plants themselves would be more succeptable or losing the basic essence that made them a plant or something like that.
of course i luaghed and pointed out how we genetically engineer our food to make it more resistant and the people fell silent cause they were beaten in a sentence. But meh. I'm just waiting for The Simpsons kinda Engineering where we Tomacco! XD
of course i luaghed and pointed out how we genetically engineer our food to make it more resistant and the people fell silent cause they were beaten in a sentence. But meh. I'm just waiting for The Simpsons kinda Engineering where we Tomacco! XD
Can we get one thing straight....Frankenstein was mad! Maybe he was a mad scientist, med student, drop out, whatever..Stitching a bunch of dead people together and trying to bring it all back to life still rates as being mad in my book..At best it might be regarded as extremely unwise. Remember how it turned out in both the films and the book! So unless you want to end up wandering the snowy wastes hunting your monster don't do it kids!!
Movie Bob's right about us all eating genetically modified food. However, some of those "scares" are about the more drastic, less moral things that are being done. Ever heard of the "terminator gene" (not making this up). It was an idea, put into practice by a few, to make it so that seeds would grow but not produce viable seeds themselves, meaning that you, the farmer, would HAVE to rebuy seeds every year. Fine for big companies that buy all their seeds anyway, but terrible for little groups and individuals. Scary part is: what happens if those plants cross breed in unexpected ways? The extinction of food crops? Probably not, but it is a scary thought.
While I agree with the premise that fear of GMO food is overblown, this video was so full of poor logic and half truths that it does a disservice to the argument. Selective breeding and modern genetic manipulation may both be "genetic engineering" but that does make them the same. Just as removing a sliver with a knife and heart transplants are both surgery, I am sure that you would only let your mom do the former.
There are valid concerns that need to be taken into account when splicing genes to produce better food. The scale of change is much larger and faster that could ever have been accomplished by dutch farmers using selective breeding. Inserting entirely new genetic material into existing genes cannot be compared to techniques that select existing genetic material. The results need to be thoroughly tested for safety to the consumer and the environment. To pretend that raising concerns is the venue of only the ignorant is offensive and only shows bob's ignorance.
The truly sad thing is the number of posters who are thanking bob for being enlightened. This is almost no better than the other idiots who scream against GMO foods.
There are valid concerns that need to be taken into account when splicing genes to produce better food. The scale of change is much larger and faster that could ever have been accomplished by dutch farmers using selective breeding. Inserting entirely new genetic material into existing genes cannot be compared to techniques that select existing genetic material. The results need to be thoroughly tested for safety to the consumer and the environment. To pretend that raising concerns is the venue of only the ignorant is offensive and only shows bob's ignorance.
The truly sad thing is the number of posters who are thanking bob for being enlightened. This is almost no better than the other idiots who scream against GMO foods.
Alright, I just finished my global responsibility management course in university and did a group research project on stem cells, we were going to look at algae-engineered bio fuels; however, we specifically decided to stick to stem cells.
Another group did Genetically modified food.
Because both deal with genetics and lab modification there were a few overlapping themes.
To summarize the extremists who are against it want to ban the development and research of Genetic Modification (GM). They mostly use fear tactics and point to the "people who are doing it wrong".
In stem cells, this was what Russian beauty salons were doing, injecting programed stem cells into your face and scalp to prevent hair loss and wrinkles; people got tumors in their face. Indian researchers were claiming they could cure all sorts of things but refused to publish their research or even prove that they were injecting stem cells. Many people found that they had skin from feet injected into their spin.
For GM foods the paranoia is that the foods are not healthy. Somehow they will cause cancer, mutation, or just make food less tasty than expensive organic foods.
Bob does a good job summarizing the selective modification that farmers have done for thousands of years; however, Genetic Engineering can allow you to add genes that do not exist naturally in the plant or food.
This is when you can get an apple orange:
To be more realistic, you can add in genes that make fruit produce vitamins and a plethora of many different results. Corn is the most likely candidate for GM due to its HUGE production level yet its low nutritional value compared with other vegetables.
The dangers of GM come from a lack of regulation to establish standards that prevent disasters. Corn that grows fast anywhere would be awesome until you end up with corn actually growing everywhere. This super corn with its high nutritional yield would be a huge feast for locusts and any other pest creating a spiraling problem for our eco system.
To conclude, Genetic Engineering does need to be deregulated to allow good researchers to get shit done; however, there also needs to be regulation on the deregulation to prevent "PhD dropouts" from getting revenge on society with their robo-matoes.
Another group did Genetically modified food.
Because both deal with genetics and lab modification there were a few overlapping themes.
To summarize the extremists who are against it want to ban the development and research of Genetic Modification (GM). They mostly use fear tactics and point to the "people who are doing it wrong".
In stem cells, this was what Russian beauty salons were doing, injecting programed stem cells into your face and scalp to prevent hair loss and wrinkles; people got tumors in their face. Indian researchers were claiming they could cure all sorts of things but refused to publish their research or even prove that they were injecting stem cells. Many people found that they had skin from feet injected into their spin.
For GM foods the paranoia is that the foods are not healthy. Somehow they will cause cancer, mutation, or just make food less tasty than expensive organic foods.
Bob does a good job summarizing the selective modification that farmers have done for thousands of years; however, Genetic Engineering can allow you to add genes that do not exist naturally in the plant or food.
This is when you can get an apple orange:
To be more realistic, you can add in genes that make fruit produce vitamins and a plethora of many different results. Corn is the most likely candidate for GM due to its HUGE production level yet its low nutritional value compared with other vegetables.
The dangers of GM come from a lack of regulation to establish standards that prevent disasters. Corn that grows fast anywhere would be awesome until you end up with corn actually growing everywhere. This super corn with its high nutritional yield would be a huge feast for locusts and any other pest creating a spiraling problem for our eco system.
To conclude, Genetic Engineering does need to be deregulated to allow good researchers to get shit done; however, there also needs to be regulation on the deregulation to prevent "PhD dropouts" from getting revenge on society with their robo-matoes.
I think most people when they hear "genetic engineering" especially when it comes to food get a mental image of their food being injected with chemicals and steroids. I get that image when I hear "genetic engineering" even when I know it not to be the case (because it is hard to fight your subconscious)
As long as what I'm eating can't hurt me and doesn't cost too much, I'm okay with it. I imagine most of the country is as well.
As long as what I'm eating can't hurt me and doesn't cost too much, I'm okay with it. I imagine most of the country is as well.
Genetic engineering (GE) could be used to vastly improve our agricultural system and lower famine in impoverished areas but current policy is causing a lot of problems. Under US law it is illegal to plant GE crops unless the company with property rights or copyright of the plant gives permission. The problem is GE crops release polin which fertilizes non-GE crops on other farms. It as been ruled in the us that this is "stealing" company property and trade secrets. This has led to large numbers of legal actions resulting in bankrupting many mid-western farmers. Another big problem with GE is it is being used it alter animals and crops to fit destructive farming practices. Currently GE is being used to support industrial agriculture which is dependent on petroleum. GE should be used to decrease the need of petroleum and increase sustainable agriculture. It is not such a black and white issue.
Right now genetic engineering looks a lot more like this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4LJ2iBJnhw] when what is being described.
Right now genetic engineering looks a lot more like this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4LJ2iBJnhw] when what is being described.
Bob is absolutely full of shit.
He is speaking with the air of authority on something he knows less than nothing about. That is, he has so much misinformation that he would actually be better off being completely ignorant.
Let's review the errors.
Selective breeding is NOT the same thing as genetic engineering. Genetic engineering involves using viruses (or other small carriers, such as needles) to modify a species using genetic material from a completely different species. In other words, two species that could NEVER breed in the wild can have materials combined. Viruses can move genetic material around in the wild "naturally," but, in multicellular organisms, this is an incredibly rare event that has only been theorized to have occured. In other words, this is NOT a natural event. In fact, you take genetic traits from plants and fungi and add them to animals. The organisms don't even have to be in the same kingdom.
Bob implied that this was only turning on and off existing traits.
In this, Bob is a liar.*
In comparison to crossbreeding, Bob calls using genetic engineering, "simplifying." By his bullshit logic, invasive surgery is the same thing as taking an herbal supplement.
And oh, let's not hear the "it all exists in nature" canard from some of the posters. Cyanide is naturally occuring -- I invite you to try some. The fact of the matter is, a protein that is excellent in corn won't necessarily be healthy in a trout. Biological systems are exceptionally complex -- they are likely the most complex thing known to man -- and extensive testing would be needed to be certain the chimeric animal is healthy and safe to eat -- testing that Monsanto and the like are dedicated to avoiding.
By the way, the relevant term here is chimera, NOT a hybrid Bob -- and if you don't know what a chimera is, you shouldn't even be in this discussion. Seriously, this is like discussing the Middle East without knowing what Jew, Arab, oil, and the U.S. mean.
But back to that earlier point, it is not the mere existence of a biological agent that makes it "natural," but its relationship with the organism. I can assure you that an octopus contains plenty of chemicals that, if placed in the human bloodstream, would sicken it, and vice-versa. Saying that something is "natural" because it's found in nature is like claiming it's okay to stab you in the head with an icicle. Water is natural, after all, and you're full of it already, right?
It gets worse. The problem with genetic engineering -- which Bob doesn't even understand -- is that it is being used without proper controls and with complete disregard to environmental laws and human saftey. Monsanto, the biggest and most well-known perpetrator, made its fortune by doing the following:
a) Invent a highly toxic weed killer.
b) Genetically modify seeds with material outside the seeds' species to resist the weed killing toxin.
c) Modify the seeds further for other uses.
d) Fail to test the food on animals -- or test the food badly, obscuring animal harm such as increased rate of cancer. (Yep, they'll lie about their own results.)
e) Sell the seed to farmers where the plants will interbreed with wild species, contaminating them.
And the real doozy:
f) If some of Monsanto's seeds get onto your property and you've refused to buy their seed, they will claim your ENTIRE FARM as their own and take the plants you developed via decades of actual cross-breeding, patent the plants, and steal your livelhood.
I'm not kidding. They did this to farmers in Canada and are pulling the same crap in India.
Oh, by the way: if you're in the third world, they'll refuse to let you save your seeds -- you know, what farmers have done for over 20 thousand years. That way you have to buy from them ever year. And they jack the price up. Not that you needed to buy their seed before they started polluting your crops with their seeds.
Needless to say, contamination of some of the oldest crops of mankind could lead to some pretty serious devastation. Monsanto and similar companies are using the entire planet as a laboratory and have no experimental controls. (And again, if you don't know what a scientific control is, you have no business saying anything about genetic engineering. Just to be sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about this: you should. You should look up your terms first, however -- and not spew a bunch of poisonous lies on a popular media site while ridiculing hundreds of millions of people fighting to preserve their lives and jobs.)
It is not genetic engineering to improve crops. It's genetic engineering to exploit the trademark system, a legal system that the framers of the Constitution never expected to be employed as we do today. It is supposed to be illegal to patent living things; Monsanto's bribes changed that.
And, oh, Bob -- that carrot? The one you thought you were so clever about? Yeah, we know it was genetically engineered due to activists telling us. It wasn't mentioned in the supermarket. In fact, Monsanto and its allies work hard to obscure all genetic engineering information and hope to make its disclosure illegal. This is despite the fact that some of their additions can trigger allergic reactions in humans.
So, if you're allergic to peanuts, imagine it being illegal to label something as containing peanut products. That's you're future.
Seriously, Bob, that carrot gag did nothing to ridicule your target and simply made you look like an ass.
Hell, even his non-science discussion is a doughy pantload. Frankenstein's lack of scientific credentials in the novel was basically irrelevant since accredidation didn't mean much in the 19th century -- but, zounds, it was a big deal in the 20th, hence the change to the movie.
You'd think he'd know that, being a movie critic.
*The vehemence of this reply is due to the fact that Bob was contemptuous of people who have a valid, important concern with the state of the FDA. In short, Bob was belittling people who are working their asses off to save lives and livelihoods in the face of ridiculously irresponsible and, frankly, antiscientific mismanagement. And he did so using out-and-out lies, some of which parallel the lies used by the industries breaking the laws and bribing congress as we speak. I call him a liar because of his confidence; he made blanket, untrue declarations with the intent to persuade.
He is speaking with the air of authority on something he knows less than nothing about. That is, he has so much misinformation that he would actually be better off being completely ignorant.
Let's review the errors.
Selective breeding is NOT the same thing as genetic engineering. Genetic engineering involves using viruses (or other small carriers, such as needles) to modify a species using genetic material from a completely different species. In other words, two species that could NEVER breed in the wild can have materials combined. Viruses can move genetic material around in the wild "naturally," but, in multicellular organisms, this is an incredibly rare event that has only been theorized to have occured. In other words, this is NOT a natural event. In fact, you take genetic traits from plants and fungi and add them to animals. The organisms don't even have to be in the same kingdom.
Bob implied that this was only turning on and off existing traits.
In this, Bob is a liar.*
In comparison to crossbreeding, Bob calls using genetic engineering, "simplifying." By his bullshit logic, invasive surgery is the same thing as taking an herbal supplement.
And oh, let's not hear the "it all exists in nature" canard from some of the posters. Cyanide is naturally occuring -- I invite you to try some. The fact of the matter is, a protein that is excellent in corn won't necessarily be healthy in a trout. Biological systems are exceptionally complex -- they are likely the most complex thing known to man -- and extensive testing would be needed to be certain the chimeric animal is healthy and safe to eat -- testing that Monsanto and the like are dedicated to avoiding.
By the way, the relevant term here is chimera, NOT a hybrid Bob -- and if you don't know what a chimera is, you shouldn't even be in this discussion. Seriously, this is like discussing the Middle East without knowing what Jew, Arab, oil, and the U.S. mean.
But back to that earlier point, it is not the mere existence of a biological agent that makes it "natural," but its relationship with the organism. I can assure you that an octopus contains plenty of chemicals that, if placed in the human bloodstream, would sicken it, and vice-versa. Saying that something is "natural" because it's found in nature is like claiming it's okay to stab you in the head with an icicle. Water is natural, after all, and you're full of it already, right?
It gets worse. The problem with genetic engineering -- which Bob doesn't even understand -- is that it is being used without proper controls and with complete disregard to environmental laws and human saftey. Monsanto, the biggest and most well-known perpetrator, made its fortune by doing the following:
a) Invent a highly toxic weed killer.
b) Genetically modify seeds with material outside the seeds' species to resist the weed killing toxin.
c) Modify the seeds further for other uses.
d) Fail to test the food on animals -- or test the food badly, obscuring animal harm such as increased rate of cancer. (Yep, they'll lie about their own results.)
e) Sell the seed to farmers where the plants will interbreed with wild species, contaminating them.
And the real doozy:
f) If some of Monsanto's seeds get onto your property and you've refused to buy their seed, they will claim your ENTIRE FARM as their own and take the plants you developed via decades of actual cross-breeding, patent the plants, and steal your livelhood.
I'm not kidding. They did this to farmers in Canada and are pulling the same crap in India.
Oh, by the way: if you're in the third world, they'll refuse to let you save your seeds -- you know, what farmers have done for over 20 thousand years. That way you have to buy from them ever year. And they jack the price up. Not that you needed to buy their seed before they started polluting your crops with their seeds.
Needless to say, contamination of some of the oldest crops of mankind could lead to some pretty serious devastation. Monsanto and similar companies are using the entire planet as a laboratory and have no experimental controls. (And again, if you don't know what a scientific control is, you have no business saying anything about genetic engineering. Just to be sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about this: you should. You should look up your terms first, however -- and not spew a bunch of poisonous lies on a popular media site while ridiculing hundreds of millions of people fighting to preserve their lives and jobs.)
It is not genetic engineering to improve crops. It's genetic engineering to exploit the trademark system, a legal system that the framers of the Constitution never expected to be employed as we do today. It is supposed to be illegal to patent living things; Monsanto's bribes changed that.
And, oh, Bob -- that carrot? The one you thought you were so clever about? Yeah, we know it was genetically engineered due to activists telling us. It wasn't mentioned in the supermarket. In fact, Monsanto and its allies work hard to obscure all genetic engineering information and hope to make its disclosure illegal. This is despite the fact that some of their additions can trigger allergic reactions in humans.
So, if you're allergic to peanuts, imagine it being illegal to label something as containing peanut products. That's you're future.
Seriously, Bob, that carrot gag did nothing to ridicule your target and simply made you look like an ass.
Hell, even his non-science discussion is a doughy pantload. Frankenstein's lack of scientific credentials in the novel was basically irrelevant since accredidation didn't mean much in the 19th century -- but, zounds, it was a big deal in the 20th, hence the change to the movie.
You'd think he'd know that, being a movie critic.
*The vehemence of this reply is due to the fact that Bob was contemptuous of people who have a valid, important concern with the state of the FDA. In short, Bob was belittling people who are working their asses off to save lives and livelihoods in the face of ridiculously irresponsible and, frankly, antiscientific mismanagement. And he did so using out-and-out lies, some of which parallel the lies used by the industries breaking the laws and bribing congress as we speak. I call him a liar because of his confidence; he made blanket, untrue declarations with the intent to persuade.
Yet another work of complete sophistry on the part of Bob.
Should we be afraid of genetically engineered food? Probably not.
Is inserting new genes the same thing as breeding animals and plants selectively? F@#K NO! Breeding occurs naturally using the doping of genes that pants and animals already have. Breeding basically changes things by changing the proportions of what genes are made. Genetic enhancement through artificial means is WAYYYYYYY more unpredictable. There SHOULD be much more heavy regulation over foods that are directly modified, but as the science progresses, genetically engineered food will be the way to go.
In short, yes genetic engineering is nothing new in principle, but the new methods we have started to employ ARE. Should we be terrified? No. Should we be cautious? Yes.
Don't tell me stuff like glow-in-the-dark bunny rabbits is perfectly natural, there's no way we could breed them to do that (unless they randomly got the mutation on their own, which is highly unlikely). I'm all for genetic engineering, but it is a technology of incredible power and thus requires respect and caution in its use.
Should we be afraid of genetically engineered food? Probably not.
Is inserting new genes the same thing as breeding animals and plants selectively? F@#K NO! Breeding occurs naturally using the doping of genes that pants and animals already have. Breeding basically changes things by changing the proportions of what genes are made. Genetic enhancement through artificial means is WAYYYYYYY more unpredictable. There SHOULD be much more heavy regulation over foods that are directly modified, but as the science progresses, genetically engineered food will be the way to go.
In short, yes genetic engineering is nothing new in principle, but the new methods we have started to employ ARE. Should we be terrified? No. Should we be cautious? Yes.
Don't tell me stuff like glow-in-the-dark bunny rabbits is perfectly natural, there's no way we could breed them to do that (unless they randomly got the mutation on their own, which is highly unlikely). I'm all for genetic engineering, but it is a technology of incredible power and thus requires respect and caution in its use.
Fruits will take revenge on you !!! Especially the Vegans and Vegetarians !!!!
Zombie Carrots will rise from their crops!
Zombie Carrots will rise from their crops!
+1keserak said:
The problem is that we don't understand pleiotropy and cellular mechanics enough to predict all of the macro phenotypic results of inserting new genes. Why are we spending trillions of dollars on CERN when physicists can't even give us an efficient form of fusion energy, when we could be devoting supercomputers and the like to understanding genetics, cellular mechanics, and neuroscience, which will inevitably have an ENORMOUS impact on society? All we have right now are people playing it fast and loose with a technology we haven't even begun to fully understand.