Would you eat genetically modified food if you understood the science behind it?

[iamwhatiseem]

Theyre typically messed with so that we have the abundance of food that we enjoy, and as a result we do have longer lifespans, too. I dont battle with minutia.

When it comes to corporate monopolization on food production, I'm not for that, sorry. -Not sorry.

Im sure you say that online as your uber principled stance, but if I were a betting man the odds are stacked heavy heavy that youve supported just that, with your wallet.

Even local farmers markets use modified seeds.

Odds are I haven't had a choice.

Of course you have a choice. It just depends on how important it really is to you, whether or not making that choice is practical.

When there's no non-GMO corn at teh Wally World, I really don't have a choice, now do I? What is my alternative?

You are beating a dead horse.
There are hundreds of varieties of vegetables that are extinct, near extinction.
For a family to grow enough vegetables to feed themselves w/o buying corporate frankenfood would require a very large yard and many hours in the garden. You would need an estimated 4,000 sq ft per person, or more depending on what climate you live in. This is why farmers exist in the first place and why societies began in the first place. Families can't grow their own food with any degree of plausibility unless they have land and extensive time to spend on it.

 

[G.T.]

whoa with such barriers to your own survival as getting yourbown property....the issue just seems so impractical to overcome yet uts somehow life or death


lol hysterical

 

[iamwhatiseem]

whoa with such barriers to your own survival as getting yourbown property....the issue just seems so impractical to overcome yet uts somehow life or death


lol hysterical

The only hysteria here is you speaking on something you know nothing about.
Societies formed millenia ago for one reason - to pool resources. Farmers exist in every single instance of human society for one reason - to grow mass food because it is not practical for people to grow their own. It would be pretty much all you would do to prepare/seed/grow/maintain and store food.
It is idiotic for someone to think you can live in a modern society, work full time jobs and grow your own food...on the side. LOL

 

[G.T.]

whoa with such barriers to your own survival as getting yourbown property....the issue just seems so impractical to overcome yet uts somehow life or death


lol hysterical

The only hysteria here is you speaking on something you know nothing about.
Societies formed millenia ago for one reason - to pool resources. Farmers exist in every single instance of human society for one reason - to grow mass food because it is not practical for people to grow their own. It would be pretty much all you would do to prepare/seed/grow/maintain and store food.
It is idiotic for someone to think you can live in a modern society, work full time jobs and grow your own food...on the side. LOL

dude shaddapp

youre overblowing gmo and then whining at the work it would take to overcome it.

lil mesaageboard whiners are all the same

 

[iamwhatiseem]

whoa with such barriers to your own survival as getting yourbown property....the issue just seems so impractical to overcome yet uts somehow life or death


lol hysterical

The only hysteria here is you speaking on something you know nothing about.
Societies formed millenia ago for one reason - to pool resources. Farmers exist in every single instance of human society for one reason - to grow mass food because it is not practical for people to grow their own. It would be pretty much all you would do to prepare/seed/grow/maintain and store food.
It is idiotic for someone to think you can live in a modern society, work full time jobs and grow your own food...on the side. LOL

dude shaddapp

youre overblowing gmo and then whining at the work it would take to overcome it.

lil mesaageboard whiners are all the same

 

[rightwinger]

Rather eat genetically modified than chemically treated

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And unnatural.

So is pooping in a toilet. Is that supposed to scare somebody? Oooh...scary

 

[Blues Man]

And unnatural.

So is pooping in a toilet. Is that supposed to scare somebody? Oooh...scary

So you can't see the difference between editing the genome of a plant with genes from animals or other completely unrelated plants and modifying the genome of a plant by the manipulation of the genome via natural processes

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you can't see the difference between editing the genome of a plant with genes from animals or other completely unrelated plants and modifying the genome of a plant by the manipulation of the genome via natural processes

Apparently,it is you who cant aee the difference, as you brought it up, have been asked 3 times to tell us the difference, yet cannot.

And i mentioned a difference: scientific manioulatiin is safer and more precise. Did you not read my post?

Now you describe some differences. Since you brought it up.

 

[Blues Man]

So you can't see the difference between editing the genome of a plant with genes from animals or other completely unrelated plants and modifying the genome of a plant by the manipulation of the genome via natural processes

Apparently,it is you who cant aee the difference, as you brought it up, have been asked 3 times to tell us the difference, yet cannot.

And i mentioned a difference: scientific manioulatiin is safer and more precise. Did you not read my post?

Now you describe some differences. Since you brought it up.

So you think introducing an animal gene into a plant is just fine?

Or introducing a Maple tree gene into a tomato is AOK?

And I don't see how artificial gene editing is safer than cross breeding compatible plants to get desired results.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you think introducing an animal gene into a plant is just fine?

So you think it isn't? Why?

Stop asking me questions. I am not your assistant. It's your point...make it.

 

[Blues Man]

So you think introducing an animal gene into a plant is just fine?

So you think it isn't? Why?

Stop asking me questions. I am not your assistant. It's your point...make it.

If it can't happen in nature it's not a good thing.

Dog DNA in a cucumber is impossible naturally.

Introducing bacterial DNA into plants where it would be impossible in nature will have unforeseen consequences.

There is never a good outcome to shrinking the genetic diversity that occurs naturally and that is going to be the end result of artificially editing the genome of food crops. Hell it's happened already

'Fewer crops' now feeding the world

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it can't happen in nature it's not a good thing.

Sorry, but that is just not compelling. That is an authoritative, unsupported statement that is quite meaningless.

 

[Blues Man]

If it can't happen in nature it's not a good thing.

Sorry, but that is just not compelling. That is an authoritative, unsupported statement that is quite meaningless.

Your opinion

Tell me how artificial gene editing ins "safer" than cross breeding compatible plants naturally.

And the post you are quoting consisted of more than that one line. If you can only comprehend one sentence fragment at a time let me know so I can limit my responses to 5 words or less

 

[G.T.]

If it can't happen in nature it's not a good thing.

Sorry, but that is just not compelling. That is an authoritative, unsupported statement that is quite meaningless.

Anti GMO is really similar to anti-vaxxers. They're also not that serious - internet has made the hysterics more possible for folks who enjoy their pants on fire

 

[G.T.]

If it can't happen in nature it's not a good thing.

Sorry, but that is just not compelling. That is an authoritative, unsupported statement that is quite meaningless.

Your opinion

Tell me how artificial gene editing ins "safer" than cross breeding compatible plants naturally.

And the post you are quoting consisted of more than that one line. If you can only comprehend one sentence fragment at a time let me know so I can limit my responses to 5 words or less

You're the one making positive claims - such as "if it cant happen in nature it's not a good thing" without any supporting documentation.

Is it a gut feeling? That's what you seem to be relying on...."it just doesnt seem natural!"

We have worse things to worry about - Sugar, suicide and heart disease and the toll it's taking on our life-spans.

As far as GMO - they steadily increased along WITH our life-span increase, so although there's no positive correlative effects necessarily, there's certainly not negative ones. Plus, Science.

Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them - Science in the News

After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.

Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.

 

[Blues Man]

If it can't happen in nature it's not a good thing.

Sorry, but that is just not compelling. That is an authoritative, unsupported statement that is quite meaningless.

Anti GMO is really similar to anti-vaxxers. They're also not that serious - internet has made the hysterics more possible for folks who enjoy their pants on fire

I have no problem with hybridizing plants. We have been doing it for thousands of years.

I am not of the mind that adding genes to the DNA of any plant used for food that are from completely foreign sources which would never occur naturally is beneficial.

 

[Blues Man]

If it can't happen in nature it's not a good thing.

Sorry, but that is just not compelling. That is an authoritative, unsupported statement that is quite meaningless.

Your opinion

Tell me how artificial gene editing ins "safer" than cross breeding compatible plants naturally.

And the post you are quoting consisted of more than that one line. If you can only comprehend one sentence fragment at a time let me know so I can limit my responses to 5 words or less

You're the one making positive claims - such as "if it cant happen in nature it's not a good thing" without any supporting documentation.

Is it a gut feeling? That's what you seem to be relying on...."it just doesnt seem natural!"

We have worse things to worry about - Sugar, suicide and heart disease and the toll it's taking on our life-spans.

As far as GMO - they steadily increased along WITH our life-span increase, so although there's no positive correlative effects necessarily, there's certainly not negative ones. Plus, Science.

Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them - Science in the News

After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.

Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.

OK so tell me why introducing animal genes into plants is a beneficial

 

[G.T.]

76 studies, not one, regarding corn

For example, an analysis of 76 studies published in February in Scientific Reports by researchers in Pisa, Italy, found that genetically engineered corn has a significantly higher yield than non-genetically modified varieties and contains lower amounts of toxins commonly produced by fungi.

Both effects most likely stem from the genetically engineered resistance to a major insect pest, the western corn rootworm, which damages ears of corn and allows fungi to flourish. The researchers said that the change has had little or no effect on other insects.

By engineering resistance to insect damage, farmers have been able to use fewer pesticides while increasing yields, which enhances safety for farmers and the environment while lowering the cost of food and increasing its availability. Yields of corn, cotton and soybeans are said to have risen by 20 percent to 30 percent through the use of genetic engineering.

 

[G.T.]

If it can't happen in nature it's not a good thing.

Sorry, but that is just not compelling. That is an authoritative, unsupported statement that is quite meaningless.

Your opinion

Tell me how artificial gene editing ins "safer" than cross breeding compatible plants naturally.

And the post you are quoting consisted of more than that one line. If you can only comprehend one sentence fragment at a time let me know so I can limit my responses to 5 words or less

You're the one making positive claims - such as "if it cant happen in nature it's not a good thing" without any supporting documentation.

Is it a gut feeling? That's what you seem to be relying on...."it just doesnt seem natural!"

We have worse things to worry about - Sugar, suicide and heart disease and the toll it's taking on our life-spans.

As far as GMO - they steadily increased along WITH our life-span increase, so although there's no positive correlative effects necessarily, there's certainly not negative ones. Plus, Science.

Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them - Science in the News

After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.

Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.

OK so tell me why introducing animal genes into plants is a beneficial

5 seconds on google answered that in at least one sense - but I'm sure the thousands of other search results have much more info on the topic.

Why are you complaining about it and asking random internet users about it...before you're even bothering to research the science for yourself...is the real analytical question you should be asking yourself.

To suggest you couldn't find the answer as to why they do what you've asked is indicative of your concern, know what I mean?

the progeny usually have to be crossed back to the parental variety to ensure stable adoption of the new trait. Sometimes undesired traits derived from one parent of a new, improved variety persist whereas the desired traits are lost.

Such are the difficulties and limitations of classical breeding. Molecular biological methods of gene transfer alleviate some of these problems by allowing the process to be manipulated at a more fundamental level. Instead of gambling on recombination of large numbers of genes, scientists can insert individual genes for specific traits directly into an established genome. They can also control the way in which these genes express themselves in the new variety of plant or animal. In short, by homing in on desired traits, molecular gene transfer can shorten the breeding time for new varieties and, in addition, lead to improvements not possible by traditional breeding.