To GMO or Non-GMO
Replies
-
So this past weekend I had many of spirited conversations with my BiL about GMO's v. Non-GMO from the stand point of weight loss. I have lost all my weight to date not caring so much about GMO (i.e. using smart balance butter sub vs. using olive oil for the sake of calories) - and while I know "not all fats are created equal" - I still stand by my choices.
My question is....does it REALLY make that much of a difference?
You eat all GMO, I'll eat non-GMO, and we'll compare medical afflictions in 25 years. Deal? DEAL!
So, have you been eating non-GMO food for your entire life, then? Or did you just decide to try and avoid it once you learned it existed? News flash: You've been eating GMO food since before you knew there was GMO food.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?0 -
Then go after THEM, not GMOs. That is all I am saying. Anyways, I keep trying to bow out and fail to do so, maybe I will just look away for a bit. Cheers.
One more thing from me, too, then I'm done. By the way, I do suggest we go after them and sweep every politician who takes corporate money and every lobbyist out.
But do you know what will really strike the death blow to this research? If failure to regulate ever results in deaths and people figure out GMOs caused the deaths. I certainly wouldn't advocate covering up the cause of those deaths, I hope you wouldn't either. Regardless, if it ever happens, it will make what happened to stem cell research look like a minor setback.
I think you are confusing food regulations with nutritional/dietary supplement regulations.
The FDA regulates current GMO foods in the same way as non-GMO foods because the GMO products have already been tested for potential allergenic and teratogenic properties and none have been found. (New products would have to hold up to the same rigorous testing.) Food safety is tightly regulated by the FDA.
Nutritional supplements have largely been deregulated due to lobbying. The FDA can only regulate supplements retroactively because the onus is on them to prove that supplements are hazardous rather than on the supplement manufacturer to prove they are safe. This is due to voters in the 90's writing congress to prevent regulation following numerous ephedra-related deaths.
It's sort of funny...20 years ago, people were writing Congress to stay out of their medicine cabinets despite a wealth of data that many nutritional supplements are harmful, ineffective, and/or contain none of the ingredients on the label. Today we have a biotechnology that is literally saving lives and has shown to produce crops identical to non-GMO products, and people want it labeled.
American voters will stop at nothing to get their way so they can regret it a couple decades later.
Exactly my point. Suppose its a big assumption to make but I'm going to guess you work in the sciences as well?
I understand where both of you are coming from. But if you want a smart voting citizenry, educate them. Don't keep them ignorant. That is literally the worst, as well as most unethical solution to the problem.
If you think adding a label to a package equates to educating the public, you have far more faith in humanity than I do!
I don't have anything against the labeling itself, but here's the problem: The Timing.
10 years ago, adding a GMO label would have meant little or nothing to the public. Most people didn't even know GMO's existed. Now people know they exist, but because so few are biotechnologists, they don't really understand what they are. That perpetuates fear. The anti-science movement is very popular right now, as evidenced by the epidemic of MMR in the US. This is absolutely the worst time to add a GMO label and perpetuate unfounded beliefs that GMO's are something 'other' than plain old food. People will go: "Ah HA! I told you so! GMO's are dangerous so the FDA had to label them!"
If you really want to educate people, EDUCATE them. Don't placate them.
The label wouldn't be a problem for an educated citizenry that has a reason to have at least a speck of faith in the regulatory process. Instead we have a poorly educated citizenry that is nevertheless aware enough to know our system is corrupted. Your solution is more ignorance by refusing to tell us what is in the food we put in our own bodies. That sort of thinking is not conducive to a democratic society. Not that we have one of those, but someday I'd sure like to.
Did you miss the part where the supplement industry was deregulated by lobbyists and supported by millions of voters who literally wrote to their Congressmen to tell them not to allow the FDA to increase regulations? That is what the 'educated' citizenry did. Shot themselves in the feet.
Most people don't even know the regulatory process, nor to they care to find out. It's pretty boring. How do they decide to have faith in it? I mean, honestly, did you know any of it before I wrote about it?
Some of it. I've forgotten a lot of it, too, but my education and training is in history and political science. I did not specialize in the USDA or FDA though. And frankly, the FDA could very well have kept its filthy fingers off my herbal Ma Huang supplement and I would have been overjoyed.
My point stands: If people are making stupid decisions, it's improper education. Both education regarding facts, and education to resist propaganda from those who would manipulate us.
You want to hide the nature of our food from people by refusing to label it clearly. Again, this mindset is not conducive to a democratic society. Regardless of what you think of the choices people will make based on those labels, to deny us choice is a mistake. It's our decision.
Your herbal ma huang supplement could have been saw dust and toenail clippings for all you knew. If anything, the FDA should increase its regulation in the supplement industry. Sure, label GMO's, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you--or anyone else--is educated by a label. Do you want an ingredients list for your apples? It's really long and contains arsenic.
My issue is that there is so much information in the world that people have begun to actively seek external filtering agents. Our brains just can't deal with all of it. There is so much noise about GMOs and vaccines and this and that - there could be a serious threat run through under our noses and it would be impossible for anybody to cut through the chatter and get our attention.
0 -
And what's a little harmless unconstitutional power grab as long as you approve of the ends, right?
You're talking about outright theft. And giving even more power to the most corrupt and powerful entity in the country. What could go wrong?Did I say anything about Marxism? Cause I thought we were talking about power grabs in the name of the "greater good"
We're talking about the death penalty for a for-profit corporation that is corrupting our government even more than it already was, then nationalizing it for the greater good, no quotation marks required.
Their lobbyists stole our entire legal system by getting politicians to give them immunity. Not worried about what happens to that company, the sooner it ceases to exist the better.
The lunacy of putting the federal government -- you know, the guys who you say got bought out in the first place -- in charge seems to have escaped you in your rage against Monsanto. If the rule of law can be cast aside to go after your enemy, it can surely be cast aside to go after you.
The federal government is already in charge. Big money owns it. I propose we remove the grip of big money from it, control it ourselves, and prevent companies like Monsanto from obtaining immunity from lawsuits and other such nonsense. But hey, if you'd prefer anarchy, we could discuss that option, too.
The people, united, can never be defeated!!!0 -
Last comment from me, I really need to sleep:
You don't want me to have the information on my food label because you don't like what I might do with that information. I might not buy something. Other people might not buy something. Valuable research could be lost due to lots of people refusing to buy something and then deciding something shouldn't exist at all (slippery slope right there).
I have a serious problem with this whole concept of keeping people ignorant because you don't like what they might do with the information, and I don't care how pristine the motives are.
I already said I have no problem with the GMO label itself. The problem is that people will remain ignorant, and their ignorance will be exacerbated by the false notion that their awareness of a label equals education. Just because you see the GMO label on an item doesn't mean you're educated about GMO's.
I was too tired when I was reading, I missed where you said you had no problem with the label, I apologize. If a non-profit, truly independent organization would like to educate people better on GMOs, the internet is a relatively inexpensive way to do it. Those of us who read labels and wonder about whether to buy something or not based on the label are the very people who will try to learn more.
But unfortunately there is so much propaganda, perception management, and general corporate and political skulduggery that we can't be blamed for assuming the worst rather than expecting the best.0 -
If you are going to list the ingredients in a recipe, you should list the amounts of each. How am I supposed to make my own apple from this?0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?
Not sure what your point is.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?
Not sure what your point is.
Bacteria ball up little pieces of DNA and share it across species lines (plasmids). Viruses can do similar things as well in animal DNA (Diabetes is actually an endogenous retrovirus - a piece of DNA from outside our genome that inserted itself into our reproductive cells).
Scientists learned how to do genetic modification by studying these natural processes.0 -
If you are going to list the ingredients in a recipe, you should list the amounts of each. How am I supposed to make my own apple from this?
LOL I should also list the macros, shouldn't I?0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?
Not sure what your point is.
Bacteria ball up little pieces of DNA and share it across species lines (plasmids). Viruses can do similar things as well in animal DNA (Diabetes is actually an endogenous retrovirus - a piece of DNA from outside our genome that inserted itself into our reproductive cells).
Scientists learned how to do genetic modification by studying these natural processes.
Um, okay?0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.
Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.
Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.
What if they have said that it is identical in structure and effect (which they have)?0 -
At some point in time, the general populace will learn that a calorie is simply a unit of energy. When ingested, the body uses this energy as fuel. When to much of it is ingested, the body will store the excess.0
-
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.
Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.
that's the nature of the thought experiment.
Two identical chemicals.
Produced by two different processes.
It's an intuition pump to see where the objection to the GM lies.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?
Not sure what your point is.
Bacteria ball up little pieces of DNA and share it across species lines (plasmids). Viruses can do similar things as well in animal DNA (Diabetes is actually an endogenous retrovirus - a piece of DNA from outside our genome that inserted itself into our reproductive cells).
Scientists learned how to do genetic modification by studying these natural processes.
Um, okay?
The processes behind Genetic Engineering are millennia old. It is not new at all. It is no newer than sexual reproduction. The only difference is that we've learned how to harness and direct it.
The parallel between breeding and genetic engineering is exact.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.
Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.
What if they have said that it is identical in structure and effect (which they have)?
I think it would greatly depend on who "they" are. Is it the same "they" that told us BPA in plastic was safe?0 -
At some point in time, the general populace will learn that a calorie is simply a unit of energy. When ingested, the body uses this energy as fuel. When to much of it is ingested, the body will store the excess.
This is only true if my MFP wormhole theory is disproven.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?
Not sure what your point is.
Bacteria ball up little pieces of DNA and share it across species lines (plasmids). Viruses can do similar things as well in animal DNA (Diabetes is actually an endogenous retrovirus - a piece of DNA from outside our genome that inserted itself into our reproductive cells).
Scientists learned how to do genetic modification by studying these natural processes.
Um, okay?
The processes behind Genetic Engineering are millennia old. It is not new at all. It is no newer than sexual reproduction. The only difference is that we've learned how to harness and direct it.
The parallel between breeding and genetic engineering is exact.
Relatively new to humans. Geez, did that really need specified?0 -
At some point in time, the general populace will learn that a calorie is simply a unit of energy. When ingested, the body uses this energy as fuel. When to much of it is ingested, the body will store the excess.
I think you're giving too much credence to the "general populace"...0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?
Not sure what your point is.
Bacteria ball up little pieces of DNA and share it across species lines (plasmids). Viruses can do similar things as well in animal DNA (Diabetes is actually an endogenous retrovirus - a piece of DNA from outside our genome that inserted itself into our reproductive cells).
Scientists learned how to do genetic modification by studying these natural processes.
Um, okay?
The processes behind Genetic Engineering are millennia old. It is not new at all. It is no newer than sexual reproduction. The only difference is that we've learned how to harness and direct it.
The parallel between breeding and genetic engineering is exact.
Relatively new to humans. Geez, did that really need specified?
Breeding programs based on DNA sequencing are relatively new to humans as well. Perhaps we should label the products of those?0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.
Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.
that's the nature of the thought experiment.
Two identical chemicals.
Produced by two different processes.
It's an intuition pump to see where the objection to the GM lies.
If the end product were identical to the original then, in the case of vegetables, they both would be resistant to Roundup, no?0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.
Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.
What if they have said that it is identical in structure and effect (which they have)?
I think it would greatly depend on who "they" are. Is it the same "they" that told us BPA in plastic was safe?
Also the same "they" that questioned the BPA in plastic.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?
Not sure what your point is.
Bacteria ball up little pieces of DNA and share it across species lines (plasmids). Viruses can do similar things as well in animal DNA (Diabetes is actually an endogenous retrovirus - a piece of DNA from outside our genome that inserted itself into our reproductive cells).
Scientists learned how to do genetic modification by studying these natural processes.
Um, okay?
The processes behind Genetic Engineering are millennia old. It is not new at all. It is no newer than sexual reproduction. The only difference is that we've learned how to harness and direct it.
The parallel between breeding and genetic engineering is exact.
Relatively new to humans. Geez, did that really need specified?
Breeding programs based on DNA sequencing are relatively new to humans as well. Perhaps we should label the products of those?
Sure, why not?0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.
Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.
that's the nature of the thought experiment.
Two identical chemicals.
Produced by two different processes.
It's an intuition pump to see where the objection to the GM lies.
If the end product were identical to the original then, in the case of vegetables, they both would be resistant to Roundup, no?
In order to genetically engineer round-up resistant plants, the sequence had to exist somewhere first.0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.
Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.
that's the nature of the thought experiment.
Two identical chemicals.
Produced by two different processes.
It's an intuition pump to see where the objection to the GM lies.
If the end product were identical to the original then, in the case of vegetables, they both would be resistant to Roundup, no?
If I selectively breed for that quality in one process and then selectively engineered for it in the other.
Which part of identical are you having a problem with? Both resultant organisms would be genetically identical to each other, not the organism they were bred/engineered from....0 -
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.
But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.
Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?
"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.
Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.
Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.
Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.
What if they have said that it is identical in structure and effect (which they have)?
I think it would greatly depend on who "they" are. Is it the same "they" that told us BPA in plastic was safe?
Also the same "they" that questioned the BPA in plastic.
Eventually. Isn't THAT the worry? Approval without enough testing to really know dangers.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions