Plus, I've heard somewhere that purple carrots are much better for you.
Anyway, a very good "Big Picture", looking forward to next weeks!
Anyway, a very good "Big Picture", looking forward to next weeks!
The Big Picture: Feeding Edge
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok, by actually working at a lab that is involved in investigating bioinsecticides and their eventual use in crops, I have to say your statement is BS. They are not shitty food, or shitty cotton, or shitty anything. You probably wouldn't even be able to tell them apart from the unmodified one unless I told you which one is which. Aaaaand they do kill the insects. They kill them pretty damn well. So well, in fact, that the problem is that one is creating a very strong selective pressure that pushes the insect population into developing resitant traits. Which does happen. Every day faster. I have the data, the pictures and the bibliography. I will supply it if needed.theultimateend said:
The only REAL threat GM organisms pose to anything is to biodiversity. I will not say that's not true because that would be a lie. However, careful management of seeds and pollen reduces those risks.
EDIT: By the way, i'm talking about GM crops that produce proteins, not those coherced into manufacturing chemicals KNOWN to be harmful. That's just nonsense.
Lol. Sometimes you can, but I'd think being the son of a military couple would dissuade you from trusting the government. I refer you to...Austin Howe said:
Bikini atoll
the syphilis experiments
the LSD experiments
agent orange
etc. etc.
Your parents must have been officers. They're called GI's for a reason.
Also yes the genetic engineering of food definitely qualifies. Read just a few of the above posts, artificial genetic enhancement is far more dangerous than selective breeding.
Not very happy with this one Bob. This very glib presentation has been refuted by other posters far better than I ever could. If your problem is with hollywoodesque stupidity and mainstream media fear mongering, then yes I believe you've got something to argue. My question then would be, "Why the hell I should heed the advice of a gaming websites movie critic or a couple of conservative comedian/magicians on a topic so imporatant as the food we eat, how it affects our lives, and coporations dicking around with it?"
To provide some sort of counterpoint, the concern with GMOs is inadvertently creating an invasive species by making changes that, say, make an organism reproduce much faster than before, or allow it to avoid some of its usual predators (perhaps the changes that increase the nutrient content in foods also make its common predators unable to identify it, allowing it to spread very fast).
Invasive species have caused enormous amounts of damage over the course of history (just look at Australia's rabbit problem) and once released they're incredibly difficult to stop. The chances of inadvertently making a safe crop into an invasive species are low, but it can be very hard to test.
Another concern is that changes to the nutrient content of crops is that they will result in the crop having insufficient amounts of a currently unknown yet important nutrient. New discoveries about nutrition continue to this day, so it's something to consider when you start talking about replacing a nation's staple crop.
Ultimately, it comes down to how much risk you're willing to take, anyway, I thought this discussion could use another viewpoint.
Invasive species have caused enormous amounts of damage over the course of history (just look at Australia's rabbit problem) and once released they're incredibly difficult to stop. The chances of inadvertently making a safe crop into an invasive species are low, but it can be very hard to test.
Another concern is that changes to the nutrient content of crops is that they will result in the crop having insufficient amounts of a currently unknown yet important nutrient. New discoveries about nutrition continue to this day, so it's something to consider when you start talking about replacing a nation's staple crop.
Ultimately, it comes down to how much risk you're willing to take, anyway, I thought this discussion could use another viewpoint.
First point: I am not afraid of G.E. food.
Second point: It is actually risky doing G.E. in a lab the way you describe. Mainly because we don't understand genetics enough to know exactly what will happen. We can guess but we can never be sure. We may change corn to be bigger or easier to grow, but it may also turn it blue. It is slightly more unpredictable then controlled breeding. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make it, or eat it. The people that make a fuss don't understand this anyway so it's kind of moot.
A better way to put this is, controlled breeding is like a flip of the coin, it works or it doesn't. G.E. in a lab is like a multi sided die. You know how many sides it has, but not what numbers. So you don't know what will come out in the end. It doesn't mean you should be afraid of the result.
Second point: It is actually risky doing G.E. in a lab the way you describe. Mainly because we don't understand genetics enough to know exactly what will happen. We can guess but we can never be sure. We may change corn to be bigger or easier to grow, but it may also turn it blue. It is slightly more unpredictable then controlled breeding. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make it, or eat it. The people that make a fuss don't understand this anyway so it's kind of moot.
A better way to put this is, controlled breeding is like a flip of the coin, it works or it doesn't. G.E. in a lab is like a multi sided die. You know how many sides it has, but not what numbers. So you don't know what will come out in the end. It doesn't mean you should be afraid of the result.
The people against genetically modified foods will often site experiments and act as if these foods are meant for consumption. They are not, they are just experiments to better understand the genetics of the subjects.
Genetically engineered crops are the most heavily tested crops. They are regulated by the EPA, USDA, and the FDA. The EPA regulates them if there is a pesticide involved, the USDA for how they are grown and how it will effect the environment, and the FDA for food safety. It takes millions of dollars of testing and many years to be able to be approved as a commercial crop.
Bottled water is only regulated by the FDA but, tap water is regulated by the EPA.
Genetically engineered crops are the most heavily tested crops. They are regulated by the EPA, USDA, and the FDA. The EPA regulates them if there is a pesticide involved, the USDA for how they are grown and how it will effect the environment, and the FDA for food safety. It takes millions of dollars of testing and many years to be able to be approved as a commercial crop.
Bottled water is only regulated by the FDA but, tap water is regulated by the EPA.
I can't look at the purple carrot and imagine it tastes like a carrot and not like a beet.
I am a weak urban failure of a man.
I am a weak urban failure of a man.
Wow Moviebob, way to undermine the dangers of GMOs. This is (by far) the worst video you've put out as far as accuracy is concerned. Genetically modified food is extremely different from selective breeding: You cannot ever put fish genes into strawberries in nature, that can only be done in a lab. Or virus DNA into a soybean. Not to mention the fact that laws on GMOs are completely slanted in the favor of large food corps like Monsantos and leave small farmers (a practically endangered breed themselves) to wilt under the weight of looming lawsuits if their crops happen to become cross-contaminated with GMO DNA (which happens frequently because GMOs are bred to be hardy and grow quickly). You didn't even bother to mention the problems of things like pork being crossed with human DNA for a leaner bacon or that genetically modified organisms can greatly harm the natural environment in the same way that cane toads did for Australia... I don't know what you were thinking, but I can't even begin to explain how disgusted I am with you. I thought you were using your nerd powers for good (lamenting the lost space program, drawing similarities between otherwise opposed social groups such as nerds and sports fanatics, even explaining comics for the non-comic book loving people out there), but this is just completely over simplified bullsh*t. You're concern is the scare tactics of GMOs by the natural food movement or 'Frankenfood' verbage? Well congrats, you've done nothing but join the other end: the food lobbyists, the corporate bullies and the scientist that won't curtail releasing new organisms without proper long term testing for fear of lost funding.
Just stick to the movie critiques; you're really, really good at it and it doesn't take much in the way of research. You're like a pretty girl who isn't very bright... Stick with your strengths (and marry a rich man while you're young).
Just stick to the movie critiques; you're really, really good at it and it doesn't take much in the way of research. You're like a pretty girl who isn't very bright... Stick with your strengths (and marry a rich man while you're young).
eh selective breeding and genetically modified foods arent the same thing...
if it was as simple as 1 gene creating 1 protein, their would not even be an issue. Until we unlock what genes do what in what other, Id rather just continue to eat my selectively breed food.
if it was as simple as 1 gene creating 1 protein, their would not even be an issue. Until we unlock what genes do what in what other, Id rather just continue to eat my selectively breed food.
Uhm, srsly guys, this is pure trolling.
To equate selective breeding with genetic engeneering is smart if you are a PR drone but I really do not expect to see gen-science propaganda BS on the Escapist. Bob hit rock bottom with this one.
Breeding is something fundamentally different from manipulating genes directly. Did you know that? Yes? Then why do you try to make us believe otherwise? No? Then why didn't you read a bit about it before making this video?
/edit: After reading a few pages of comments I am genuinely shocked about how uninformed most comments are. They are mainly variations of "thank you for giving me a simplified explanation so I do not need to feel bad that the experts know so much more about the subject." Genetic engineering is something radically new. Yes, we can manipulate genes but we have almost no idea of the consequences. Scientists can engineer living organisms with properties that are unnatural. Some of these organisms are not viable, others are extremely dominant and can eliminate other species which cannot adapt to the man-made changes fast enough. GE has lots of implications most of which are not understood at all. To play these implications down is stupid and irresponsible.
To equate selective breeding with genetic engeneering is smart if you are a PR drone but I really do not expect to see gen-science propaganda BS on the Escapist. Bob hit rock bottom with this one.
Breeding is something fundamentally different from manipulating genes directly. Did you know that? Yes? Then why do you try to make us believe otherwise? No? Then why didn't you read a bit about it before making this video?
/edit: After reading a few pages of comments I am genuinely shocked about how uninformed most comments are. They are mainly variations of "thank you for giving me a simplified explanation so I do not need to feel bad that the experts know so much more about the subject." Genetic engineering is something radically new. Yes, we can manipulate genes but we have almost no idea of the consequences. Scientists can engineer living organisms with properties that are unnatural. Some of these organisms are not viable, others are extremely dominant and can eliminate other species which cannot adapt to the man-made changes fast enough. GE has lots of implications most of which are not understood at all. To play these implications down is stupid and irresponsible.
Dude, seriously? You decry Bob for oversimplying a complex issue, which is fine, but you do it arguing with a tone that implies you have all the info. Guess what? To me, a scientist actually in the field to genetic engineering, and a little into transgenic plant development, you look the same way. I don't have the time right now to counter all the wrong points in your reply (which are not all of them since several are quite valid), but I will say this: I don't like Monsanto too much, mostly because of how they negotiate and other business and political practices. They are like Wal-Mart in a certain way. Their science, however, is much more solid than what you've been allowed to know since a lot of the protocols are trade secrets. Do you actually know how long it takes from the idea of introducing x or y thing into a crop to it reaching the supermarket? It's about 9-11 years. The least. Most of that time is used in a lot of cycles of testing and selecting for normal growth, non-toxicity, pilot field tests, developing control and delivery methods to avoid unwanted spread and a LOT of other steps. Before you go out and say that "Monsanto and allies" have no controls and do no testing please familiarize yourself with the actual process of creating GM crops. It takes LONGER than developing pharmaceuticals, and you know, it's not regulated by the FDA. The department of agriculture is in charge of that.keserak said:
Also, interest in profit goes both ways on the benefit scale. You think they skimp on controls and tests, etc, etc, to cut down costs? It is also in their interest NOT to skimp on this, since any slip up opens the door to huge legal backlash in lawsuits, loss of patents and HUGE economical set backs.
The whole suicide-seed is a horrible business. Not all GM companies work that way. Stop with the generalizations because you end up glossing over the actual complexities just as you accuse Bob of doing.
EDIT: oops...my bad. FDA is kind of somewhere in there, but the Agriculture department also handles it. Just checked. Apparently it's waaaay more paperwork than I thought. You people in the US have too much jumping through hoops sometimes. Although, in this case, it means more people have to agree to let a product out into the market. Again, politics are the main issue here, not the biology.
The scare isn't about people dying from GM vegetables. It's the lack of testing done to ensure that the GM round-up resistent vegetables don't pass their round-up resistence to normal weeds. Which would cause serious problems.
No there isn't any sense in the GM food controversy the folks that oppose GM foods are using scare tactics and false information. Without GM foods the worlds organic supply can only feed 4 billion people. There are roughly 7 billion people on the planet; which 3 billion do folks think should starve? Me not a god dang one bring on the GM foods!Sepiida said:
HOLY SHIT! that's a blast from the past! wow i completely forgot that show existed, i wish i could remember more of it than the 2 sec blurb from the theme song you just conjured up for me.Pariahwulfen said:
*EDIT* btw i'm remembering a cartoon, i guess it was a movie at some point too?