GMO's. Would you eat em? Do you like em?

[Steve Walker]

The question is too vague - it's like asking "do you mind eating food with additives in it". I've no objection in principle to the use of GM technology for food, but there are applications of that technology I would not be happy with. So "what" and "why" would be my questions.

[corydoras]

Relating to the last line unfortunately we let the less beneficial "seed" breed and then look after it rather than letting nature run its course

 

Cory most of the different types of corm pre date modern gene slicing

I wonder if its got worse or monsanta has flexed its huge power to shut up any bad findings?

/http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/health/genetic-modification-taints-corn-in-mexico.html

 

Monsants is clever if their patented genes get in every source of seed then they own the royalties on that gene and the buyer pays the price of using that gene

 

Luckily (in america anyway) you cannot copyright human genes, unfortunately you can though if you modify it ,so theres a future risk big pharma will "accidentally" own bits of you should the gene get passed on somehow "accidentally" ofcours!This means ofcourse they own the rights to who does what with it ,permission to breed ,permission to crap? Payment to big pharma to do both?

Yes I know that selective breeding of both plants and animals has been something we have practiced for millenia.

 

I wondered how long this thread would run before conspiracies and large brown envelopes would appear.

[chesters1]

Yes I know that selective breeding of both plants and animals has been something we have practiced for millenia.

 

I wondered how long this thread would run before conspiracies and large brown envelopes would appear.

just google monsanta and enjoy

[corydoras]

just google monsanta and enjoy

I'm no fan of Monsanto or their sharp business practices, but I am still waiting for my first brown envelope stuffed with £50 notes.

[Phone]

All,

 

Certainly I am a fan of Monsanto. By what wild stretch of the imagination do you think plants (crops) with GM traits, and with no credible evidence of harm to humans or animals, are harmful? We now have corn yielding 220 bu/acre where it used to be 22; soya yielding 120 bu/acre where it used to be 12. Wheat nearly the same.

 

I'm not going to do the numbers but how many lives are "saved" from starvation by Monsanto annually? To tie GMO to the Ebola thread - are cures and vaccines developed by Monsanto also "bad". Sounds to me like you all are singing sour grapes on a full stomach.

 

Phone

[Steve Walker]

just google monsanta and enjoy

Is that the bastard who tipped glyphosate down my chimney last Christmas?

[corydoras]

All,

 

Certainly I am a fan of Monsanto. By what wild stretch of the imagination do you think plants (crops) with GM traits, and with no credible evidence of harm to humans or animals, are harmful? We now have corn yielding 220 bu/acre where it used to be 22; soya yielding 120 bu/acre where it used to be 12. Wheat nearly the same.

 

I'm not going to do the numbers but how many lives are "saved" from starvation by Monsanto annually? To tie GMO to the Ebola thread - are cures and vaccines developed by Monsanto also "bad". Sounds to me like you all are singing sour grapes on a full stomach.

 

Phone

It's not a question of their GM crops being "bad", Phone it's them not allowing third word farmers to save seed to re-plant the next season.

 

Monsanto keeps shooting itself in the foot

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/monsantos-good-bad-pr-problem/

 

BS like this does not help

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/monsanto-gives-47m-colorado-campaign-against-gmo-labeling

 

You won't hear anti-vaccination or anti big-pharma crap spouting from my lips or finger-tips.

[corydoras]

The question is too vague - it's like asking "do you mind eating food with additives in it". I've no objection in principle to the use of GM technology for food, but there are applications of that technology I would not be happy with. So "what" and "why" would be my questions.

Yeah I didn't think about that. There is more than one way to GM an organism too.

 

I take it that your not a big fan of Glofish?

Edited October 2, 2014 by corydoras

[ayjay]

All,

 

By what wild stretch of the imagination do you think plants (crops) with GM traits, and with no credible evidence of harm to humans or animals, are harmful? We now have corn yielding 220 bu/acre where it used to be 22; soya yielding 120 bu/acre where it used to be 12. Wheat nearly the same.

 

Let's look at it from a more long term point of view: producing more and more food is a short term cure, it's not sustainable when you look at the potential population in a few decades time, there will be a limit to how many "beans" per acre, eventually it won't be enough.

 

My main concern however is with cross pollination and the irrevocable alteration of other species: we are still searching for cures to many ailments - it's my belief that both the cause and the cure of any ailment is to be found amongst this planets natural resources - once you have changed those resources you may have just destroyed the cure for cancer.

[Steve Walker]

I take it that your not a big fan of Glofish?

They're pretty frivolous, but it's likely to be a maladaptive gene relative to the wild type (so unlikely to spread), and doesn't really bother me from a welfare point of view - I think fancy goldfish get a worse lot in life.