The Clean Eating Delusion...
Replies
-
"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
It is. The only difference between a clean and a dirty bulk is how big your surplus is.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".0 -
I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields
Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.0 -
none of which is to say I don't trust modern medicine. Because for the most part I do (I'm still iffy on psychotropic medications, but surgery I'm down with...tho)0
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
That's one of my favorite definitions0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »susan100df wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Your comments about chemicals are ridiculous. Of course all things are made of chemical compounds, whether found in nature or the lab. But, people eating organic or raw are trying to avoid or minimize the amount of pesticides, processed foods and toxins in their bodies. Most of what you have written are opinions, not fact, and describing others' choices as ignorant or nonsense just proves that you are the one who is both!
you do realize that organic foods and vegetables are treated with pesticides, correct?
Some are. You do realize that many people grow food that is not treated with pesticides, correct?
The post you replied to said "avoid or minimize" pesticides in your body. If you want to minimize pesticides organic may do that
"Treated" by whom? There are no pesticide free plants.
Treated by a human. I've never known anyone to refer to a plant's own defense system as treatment.
I tend to trust acts of men over acts of plants. Humans have a nominal interest in not killing me, plants have an outright incentive to see me as little different from an aphid.
I agree mostly. Monsanto employees are eating the GMO foods too.
You can't deny that companies (humans) have caused people to become very sick and/or die because they put profit over safety. The first thing that comes to mind is companies releasing bad stuff into the water supply and lots of people get cancer in the area. It cost more to dispose the bad stuff properly.
Like I said I eat and feed my family GMO foods. I just don't have trust that it's 100% safe.
100% safe anything is a fallacy...
How so? If I pick and apple, eat it and suffer no ill effects, wasn't that apple 100% safe?
no, not at all. You just exposed your body to all sorts of substances with potential negative chronic/acute effects.
You do this every time you breath, drink water, touch anything.
Most of the time you happened to expose yourself to low enough concentrations that the exposure caused no observable adverse effect.
Why wouldn't that mean 'safe'? No harm no foul, right?
And by that definition, organic is no safer than conventional.
Crops treated with approved pesticides are no safer than those that aren't
What part of this don't you understand?
All of it. Though I never said I thought crops treated with pesticides were not safe, I don't see how making such a leap is logical.
Why else would anyone want to minimize their exposure to pesticides?
I wasn't the one who said that, but I don't see why "not safe" would always be the answer. I'd bet "don't know' is just as common.
Don't know what?
If it is safe.FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »susan100df wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Your comments about chemicals are ridiculous. Of course all things are made of chemical compounds, whether found in nature or the lab. But, people eating organic or raw are trying to avoid or minimize the amount of pesticides, processed foods and toxins in their bodies. Most of what you have written are opinions, not fact, and describing others' choices as ignorant or nonsense just proves that you are the one who is both!
you do realize that organic foods and vegetables are treated with pesticides, correct?
Some are. You do realize that many people grow food that is not treated with pesticides, correct?
The post you replied to said "avoid or minimize" pesticides in your body. If you want to minimize pesticides organic may do that
"Treated" by whom? There are no pesticide free plants.
Treated by a human. I've never known anyone to refer to a plant's own defense system as treatment.
I tend to trust acts of men over acts of plants. Humans have a nominal interest in not killing me, plants have an outright incentive to see me as little different from an aphid.
I agree mostly. Monsanto employees are eating the GMO foods too.
You can't deny that companies (humans) have caused people to become very sick and/or die because they put profit over safety. The first thing that comes to mind is companies releasing bad stuff into the water supply and lots of people get cancer in the area. It cost more to dispose the bad stuff properly.
Like I said I eat and feed my family GMO foods. I just don't have trust that it's 100% safe.
100% safe anything is a fallacy...
How so? If I pick and apple, eat it and suffer no ill effects, wasn't that apple 100% safe?
no, not at all. You just exposed your body to all sorts of substances with potential negative chronic/acute effects.
You do this every time you breath, drink water, touch anything.
Most of the time you happened to expose yourself to low enough concentrations that the exposure caused no observable adverse effect.
Why wouldn't that mean 'safe'? No harm no foul, right?
And by that definition, organic is no safer than conventional.
Crops treated with approved pesticides are no safer than those that aren't
What part of this don't you understand?
All of it. Though I never said I thought crops treated with pesticides were not safe, I don't see how making such a leap is logical.
Why else would anyone want to minimize their exposure to pesticides?
This is one very good reason for me: http://sos-bees.org/CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
Did they actually implement it? Probably not.
Nobody said that there shouldn't be testing and oversight. There should (and is)
From your description, it sounds like an early stage experiment. The primary goal was reached (sterilization, but breed specificity wasn't. That part would come in a later stage.The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Good thing this doesn't actually happen.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
I'm just gonna steal Carlos' video for a sec.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HSten18rI9A 0 -
maybe i'll watch the video later. this conversation did make me research organic factory farms, which was eye opening. Definitely different than the farms I worked on.0
-
I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
What's your problem with the source?0 -
Here's a better source of information: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms
"The findings are critical to understanding evolution, says Hank Seifert, a molecular biologist at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois. “This is a very well-done paper. They used all the latest data they could find, all the genomes in the databases,” he says. “It makes it clearer than ever that there has been a history, throughout evolution, of gene transfer between organisms.”
But not all agree that the new evidence is indisputable. “I see little here that is particularly convincing evidence for horizontal gene transfer,” says microbiologist Jonathan Eisen of the University of California, Davis. He doesn’t rule out that horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals is possible, but says that there are other explanations for the identified genes being present in only some branches of the evolutionary tree—a gene that existed in a far-off ancestor could have simply been lost in many relatives other than two seemingly unrelated species, for instance. “It is up to [the researchers] to exclude other, more plausible alternatives, and I just do not think they have done that.”"
Still, they are talking about evolution. Not mass quantities of HGT done with human intent to increase certain chemicals or traits, copyrighted by certain companies, and impacting the entire food supply of our species. I think it's wise to be wary.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
Congratulations! You are using the exact same rationale as those who feared railroads and cars.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
Congratulations! You are using the exact same rationale as those who feared railroads and cars.
God gave you two legs, and here you are questioning it with fancy technology. Heathen.
0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.
I'm not a patent attorney. Are you? I am licensed to practice law. Are you? I'm not going to argue with you about terms about patent law/intellectual property/copyright/trademark when the point is the same- a person can own the legal rights to a gene code. That's the problem I am pointing out.
How can I be an attorney and "not follow the case"?? Easy. I WORK.0 -
So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.
I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.
I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.
0 -
youngmomtaz wrote: »So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.
I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.
I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.
a lot of it is because importing it would benefit the US...0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
Congratulations! You are using the exact same rationale as those who feared railroads and cars.
Congratulations! You are using the same rationale as those who invented DDT and the atomic bomb!
Apparently my personal choice to be wary of GMO is really threatening to people. lol.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
Congratulations! You are using the exact same rationale as those who feared railroads and cars.
Congratulations! You are using the same rationale as those who invented DDT and the atomic bomb!
Apparently my personal choice to be wary of GMO is really threatening to people. lol.
DDT saved millions of lives...if not hundreds of millions...0 -
After reading through several pages I came to a conclusion that
1. You guys will never agree on this and this post will go on forever
2. It's starting to have nothing to do with helpful fitness and weigh loss advice and it's becoming a piss contest on who knows more about science. I'm sure there are other apps that allow you to compare your Ph.D. degrees in science, biology and chemistry.0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »After reading through several pages I came to a conclusion that
1. You guys will never agree on this and this post will go on forever
2. It's starting to have nothing to do with helpful fitness and weigh loss advice and it's becoming a piss contest on who knows more about science. I'm sure there are other apps that allow you to compare your Ph.D. degrees in science, biology and chemistry.
yep +10 -
stevencloser wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
What's your problem with the source?
Probably this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/29/radio-host-dennis-prager-has-a-new-online-college-to-combat-liberal-bias-and-teach-judeo-christian-values/0 -
0
-
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.
I'm not a patent attorney. Are you? I am licensed to practice law. Are you? I'm not going to argue with you about terms about patent law/intellectual property/copyright/trademark when the point is the same- a person can own the legal rights to a gene code. That's the problem I am pointing out.
How can I be an attorney and "not follow the case"?? Easy. I WORK.
So admittedly, you're ignorant of the actual facts of what you're linking to, assuming it supports your claim, but then condescending towards me because I know more about it even though you're the lawyer?
If you have a moral problem with owning genes, you're better off fighting pharmaceutical and medical industries than the dozen or so novel genes patented in food production. Also already said, patenting genes isn't even necessary for agriculture, it has been possible to patent traits side the 1920s before transgenic was a term. Lumping patent lawyer with other parts of the law is part of the problem that lends ethical legitimacy to those claims.youngmomtaz wrote: »So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.
I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.
I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.
Few countries have banned them, many simply have never approved their use.
There are also countries that ban homosexuality, but they're wrong too.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.
I'm not a patent attorney. Are you? I am licensed to practice law. Are you? I'm not going to argue with you about terms about patent law/intellectual property/copyright/trademark when the point is the same- a person can own the legal rights to a gene code. That's the problem I am pointing out.
How can I be an attorney and "not follow the case"?? Easy. I WORK.
So admittedly, you're ignorant of the actual facts of what you're linking to, assuming it supports your claim, but then condescending towards me because I know more about it even though you're the lawyer?
If you have a moral problem with owning genes, you're better off fighting pharmaceutical and medical industries than the dozen or so novel genes patented in food production. Also already said, patenting genes isn't even necessary for agriculture, it has been possible to patent traits side the 1920s before transgenic was a term. Lumping patent lawyer with other parts of the law is part of the problem that lends ethical legitimacy to those claims.youngmomtaz wrote: »So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.
I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.
I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.
Few countries have banned them, many simply have never approved their use.
There are also countries that ban homosexuality, but they're wrong too.
It's not my concern that you think I was being condescending when I asked you the same types of questions you asked me. The case about the canola oil, I browsed it. From what I read, he sprayed a field that had cross pollinated crops. Saved the cross pollinated crops and then used that to reseed the next year. Farmers have for a long time selected which seeds to save to grow. I don't think the case is as clean cut as you apparently think it is.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to put words in my mouth and then argue against things I didn't even say. Have a nice day.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.
I'm not a patent attorney. Are you? I am licensed to practice law. Are you? I'm not going to argue with you about terms about patent law/intellectual property/copyright/trademark when the point is the same- a person can own the legal rights to a gene code. That's the problem I am pointing out.
How can I be an attorney and "not follow the case"?? Easy. I WORK.
So admittedly, you're ignorant of the actual facts of what you're linking to, assuming it supports your claim, but then condescending towards me because I know more about it even though you're the lawyer?
If you have a moral problem with owning genes, you're better off fighting pharmaceutical and medical industries than the dozen or so novel genes patented in food production. Also already said, patenting genes isn't even necessary for agriculture, it has been possible to patent traits side the 1920s before transgenic was a term. Lumping patent lawyer with other parts of the law is part of the problem that lends ethical legitimacy to those claims.youngmomtaz wrote: »So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.
I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.
I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.
Few countries have banned them, many simply have never approved their use.
There are also countries that ban homosexuality, but they're wrong too.
It's not my concern that you think I was being condescending when I asked you the same types of questions you asked me. The case about the canola oil, I browsed it. From what I read, he sprayed a field that had cross pollinated crops. Saved the cross pollinated crops and then used that to reseed the next year. Farmers have for a long time selected which seeds to save to grow. I don't think the case is as clean cut as you apparently think it is.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to put words in my mouth and then argue against things I didn't even say. Have a nice day.
You said you work, implying I actually know the case because I do not. That's condescension.
Percy sprayed round up on weeds, noticed some of his crops near thus spraying resisted the spraying. He intentionally reused those seeds knowing they had RR trait, so that he grew done fields with 70% showing that trait. That's not cross contamination. If these were animals instead of crops, it would be like a neighbor's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, Percy captured it, used it to breed with his dog, repeatedly, and when the neighbor hard about it, he claimed it was an accident - even though he now has pups of those pups that are three quarters purebred bull dog. Yet Purely is getting the media to say his neighbor sued Percy over the neighbor's dog trespassing. Well, that dog don't hunt as they say.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5_D0rdqeAsThis discussion has been closed.
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