current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 put up or shut up the research does not exist yet , you know that JM , why keep asking for research that does not exist ? Quote
OceanBreeze Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) I see things are getting heated up, a great time to enter the discussion! When it comes to GMO, I tend to err on the side of caution. That’s not because I think exposure to the Roundup Ready gene is going to cause three-armed farmers to be appearing, but because we humans do have a long history of f*cking things up and we don’t really know wtf we are doing when we mess with Mother Nature. The use of herbicide resistant crops does simplify weed control but natural selection can in response produce super herbicide resistant weeds, just as we now have super antibiotic resistant bacteria.And, the more resistant the weeds get, the more herbicide gets used and we end up creating yet another big mess. I am particularly concerned about the runoff of pollutants, mainly from agriculture, into our rivers, lakes and oceans, and the effect that has on marine life. QUOTE: For example, beluga whales in the St. Lawrence River system have an extraordinarily high rate of intestinal cancer — it is their second leading cause of death. One kind of pollutant in the waters, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, is known to cause cancer in humans. The compounds are suspected carcinogens for beluga whales as well. Fish in other polluted waterways, including brown bullhead catfish and English sole, also exhibit high levels of cancer. END QUOTE The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAH that are mentioned are indeed herbicides (or are a common ingredient in herbicides). I am not sure that Roundup Ready confers resistance to PAH but I am aware there are other herbicide resistant GMOs out there such as Phenoxy Auxins that do. So, to be clear, my chief concern about GMOs that are herbicide resistant is mainly with the secondary effects of herbicide tolerant weeds and increased use of herbicides and not so much about a possible horizontal transfer of a genetic mutation from the plants to humans; although I would not rule that last possibility out entirely. Quote: Scientists have discover that certain cell structures, the centrioles, could act as information carriers throughout cell generations. The discovery raises the possibility that transmission of biological information could involve more than just genes. Centrioles may actually be carriers of information, which holds profound implications for biology and disease treatment.UNQUOTE Transmission of biological information can involve more than just genes? :shocked: What are the possible implications of that with regards to GMOs? Does anyone have a clue?I admit I don’t, I’m just a simple sailor, but my feeling about the use of GMO can be summed up as: Proceed with Caution! Edited March 10, 2017 by OceanBreeze current and JMJones0424 2 Quote
sanctus Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 BULLSHIT I reject your claim entirely. I thought I adequately addressed it previously. There is no reason to believe any organism can infect its DNA into ours through the process of eating it. You do not address the DNA differences in the heads of lettuce you consume, even though you know that each head of lettuce you consume contains different DNA. Time will tell why that last head of red romaine didn't cause you to grow a third arm. This is what I mean when I use the term FUD, sanctus. It is precisely this kind of idiocy that you are supporting when you fail to assess your pre-conceived notions.Don't put me there, I know that crop of any type GMO or not is not a virus (i.e cannot alter your genes). Quote
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 sanctus GMO's are CHEMICAL based . nothing to do with a virus . Quote
sanctus Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 you didn't adequately address my question ; obviously . a chemical that makes a crop resistant to roundup has not yet been proven not to effect our Human genetics . to this third arm stuff ; we don't know , that is the bottom line . we don't know . And JmJones just to let you know, I also do not agree with this.Current: the GMO-seeds you get have their genes modified yes, but once you grow them the gene introduced modified is just passed on via normal growth (cell division etc.) no chemical anymore. Which anyway never were chemicals for Round-up ready crops, but a a bacterium (Agrobacterium) which inserts the desired genes into the plant genes and then is killed of with antibiotics. (see for instance all at the bottom http://archive.bio.ed.ac.uk/jdeacon/microbes/crown.htm) And the fear if this agrobacterium gets antibiotic resistance, is not really found since it does not really attack humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrobacterium) Quote
sanctus Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 sanctus GMO's are CHEMICAL based . nothing to do with a virus .I don't get as pissed as JmJones, but read up on how GMOs are created. Like the first link posted above. I don't call a bacterium a chemical, but if you do... JMJones0424 1 Quote
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 I don't get as pissed as JmJones, but read up on how GMOs are created. Like the first link posted above. I don't call a bacterium a chemical, but if you do... but what is inside the bacterium ? Quote
sanctus Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 Genes, so define what you mean by chemical.Chemical for me is: add a substance (not a living organism) which modifies the Genes.Your "chemical creation" of strains exists but it is not GMO, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/ section: Mutation Breeding: Induced Chemical and X-ray Mutagenesis Quote
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 Genes, so define what you mean by chemical. Chemical for me is: add a substance (not a living organism) which modifies the Genes. Your "chemical creation" of strains exists but it is not GMO, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/ section:Mutation Breeding: Induced Chemical and X-ray Mutagenesis so what makes the bacterium anti-roundup ? what does the bacterium do to roundup to neutralize it ? Quote
sanctus Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 The bacterrium is not roundup-resistant, it just takes the resistant gene into the plant...But before I reply more, are you reading any of the links provided? Because it does not seem so at all JMJones0424 1 Quote
billvon Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 again you are talking about living things . GMO's are CHEMICAL .No, they're not. GMO stands for "genetically modified organism." It's a change to the organism's genome, not "a chemical." JMJones0424 1 Quote
Maine farmer Posted March 10, 2017 Author Report Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) What has been forgotten here is that GMO's have now got pesticides and/or herbicides in the genetics of the seeds . THAT is disturbing to say the least .I can see you are a bit confused, but not entirely off base. The only genetic modification I know of that you may be referencing is the case of BT corn. http://entomology.ca.uky.edu/ef130 In that case, corn has been modified to produce the BT toxin to kill any cutworms that might feed on the corn. Bt toxin, by the way is used by organic producers as a pesticide, and the main reason organic producers are against BT corn is that it will cause the cutworms to adapt and become resistant to the BT toxin. There is some debate as to the safety of BT corn in the human diet. Really so you have no idea that genetics of GMO's have no roundup in their genetics surprised .Roundup is a post emergent herbicide. https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/weeds/post-emergent-herbicides.htm What that means is that for roundup to be effective, it must be applied to the growing plant on the leaves. Pouring roundup on or into the ground would not be effective, so there would be no point in having roundup in the seeds Edited March 10, 2017 by Farming guy JMJones0424 1 Quote
current Posted March 17, 2017 Report Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) I can see you are a bit confused, but not entirely off base. The only genetic modification I know of that you may be referencing is the case of BT corn. http://entomology.ca.uky.edu/ef130 In that case, corn has been modified to produce the BT toxin to kill any cutworms that might feed on the corn. Bt toxin, by the way is used by organic producers as a pesticide, and the main reason organic producers are against BT corn is that it will cause the cutworms to adapt and become resistant to the BT toxin. There is some debate as to the safety of BT corn in the human diet. Roundup is a post emergent herbicide. https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/weeds/post-emergent-herbicides.htm What that means is that for roundup to be effective, it must be applied to the growing plant on the leaves. Pouring roundup on or into the ground would not be effective, so there would be no point in having roundup in the seedsBt is a natural bacterium used because it Naturally only lives for a few days , then breaks down http://www.bt.ucsd.edu Edited March 17, 2017 by current Quote
JMJones0424 Posted March 17, 2017 Report Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) Current, your link does not provide evidence for your claim. Edited March 17, 2017 by JMJones0424 Quote
Maine farmer Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Posted March 17, 2017 Bt is a natural bacterium used because it Naturally only lives for a few days , then breaks down http://www.bt.ucsd.eduThe genetically modified corn does not produce the BT bacterium, it produces the BT toxin. Quote
billvon Posted March 17, 2017 Report Posted March 17, 2017 This thread is a good example of a case where the people who understand a technology the least are the most likely to oppose it. It's pretty common nowadays. (Just ask ten people if they oppose companies putting dihydrogen monoxide in your drinking water.) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.