Monsanto the GMO Kings

[J’raxis 270145]

That was always my position; I just didn't spell it out in exactly those terms. Go back and look at my posts—I was always taking the position that GM is safe until you can show me otherwise.

J'raxis you are drawing a line between individual cases of GM and Kola is not. He's pretty much labeling any food that has been artificially modified as harmful. By his own admission, even if a new line came out that no one had shown to be harmful, he would still find it suspicious. You are preferring to judge on an individual case basis.

Exactly. A few posts back I said that we're basically doing the same thing (assume _____, prove otherwise), we're just filling in the blanks with opposites: Safety vs. harm. He expects GM, both examples and the very concept, to be rigorously proven to be safe before he'll accept it.

I strongly doubt that your preference is to assume safety until proven otherwise. That would be a highly risky position. Imagine the same policy with regards to who you sleep with. A reasonable case by case strategy is to start from the position that you do not know, and use proper precautions. Does that make sense?

That's a good point—precautions, yes, but not conclusions, as Kola seems to be doing. In fact, when dealing with new people, in any context, I always take precautions and am, until I get to know them well, actually quite suspicious of them—but outwardly I'll trust them, and I won't make any conclusions that the person is a bad person until they've done something to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm always planning for something to go wrong, but I'm not going to act as if it is, until it is.

Also, the example you're using has well-known, articulable, and predictable dangers (STDs), whereas there's really no such thing in the case of a new invention such as genetic modification. The examples Kola presents are all over the map—some of it's about poisonous GM, some of it's about cross-pollination, some of it's about yield decreases, &c.. What precautions should be taken when inventing another new GM product? If I invent a brand new GMO, what dangers are actually predictable?

[NJLiberty]

Monsanto has actually designed some crops to be infertile, too, so farmers have to buy new seeds every year.

That though is little different than F1 Hybrids of plants. The seed from those plants can be saved, but it won't yield the same variety as it came from.

George

[kola]

He's pretty much labeling any food that has been artificially modified as harmful.

INCORRECT, Caleb.

My opinion is based on the material I have read (which btw I posted a small sampling on this thread) and clearly shows scientists and reseachers material. Is every scientist who questions GMO jumoing the gun then too? I do not get you.. and why you continually rehash your same old song and dance tune.

This is not the first time you have falsey accused me of something and this is not the first time I attempted to correct you.

Your assumption that I refute something "just becuz" I said so, is once again wrong, misleading and unjustified.

What a waste of time.

Kola

[Dylboz]

OK... What GMO food will you eat? Which GMO crop do you endorse? In your opinion, which GMO foods are OK? If you say "none," then J'raxis is CORRECT.

[Caleb]

INCORRECT, Caleb.

My opinion is based on the material I have read (which btw I posted a small sampling on this thread) and clearly shows scientists and reseachers material. Is every scientist who questions GMO jumoing the gun then too? I do not get you.. and why you continually rehash your same old song and dance tune.

I didn't say you were jumping the gun, I said you were lumping all gmo as a group. I'm trying to pinpoint the differences in approach between different people, not draw conclusions of who is right or wrong.

This is not the first time you have falsey accused me of something and this is not the first time I attempted to correct you.

More like not the first time you have misunderstood me. You're alright, kola, but you do have a chip the size of texas on your shoulder, which causes you to just be looking to take offense. It's also the reason that so many people here like to push your buttons.

If you go back over my posts, you'll find that I'm not exactly an apologist for gmo. I don't like it anymore than you do. I think the only rational way for people to handle it is to start gathering in groups and producing their own food, or failing that option to buy local. You stand up to monsanto the same way you stand up to government: Just say `I won't'.

[kola]

dylboz quote OK... What GMO food will you eat? Which GMO crop do you endorse? In your opinion, which GMO foods are OK? If you say "none," then J'raxis is CORRECT.

it was Caleb who stated the above.,not jraxi.

As far as eating artifically "modifed foods" I eat quite a lot of them but I wish I had a choice not to, but I don't. Since GMO isnt labeled I am sure I consume them. I eat fast food occasionally and I would bet its it that shit. I eat some breads and other foods that have artifical ingredients and these too have been "modified. I try to eat a lot of organic stuff but as I sated earlier, certain GMO foods is allowed to carry the organic label.

Are you happy now? Because you and others are following "The Jraxi Law" I am forced to give up my rights. So until I can become self sufficent, I will have to obey the Mob.

Kola

[kola]

No Caleb, often you do not even read what I post and then just blurt something out. That is why (as of late) I have been mentioning things like ("in my last post" or "yes I posted that").

The "chip" I have is with a few of you goobers who have this sillyass theory in which you decide what is the accepted and then say that it is safe and this inheritly follows the law of "innocent until proven guilty"... and to top it off you call it "logic reasoning and science!"

Kola

[Caleb]

The "chip" I have is with a few of you goobers who have this sillyass theory in which you decide what is the accepted and then say that it is safe and this inheritly follows the law of "innocent until proven guilty"... and to top it off you call it "logic reasoning and science!"

I don't read your posts?    Have you read mine? Where did I decide that gmo was safe and accepted? Where did I advocate for using gmo foods?  Here's what I have written on the subject:

My take on this whole GMO thing is that it is basically being done so that people can copyright foods.

My point is that it just isn't necessary. Whether it's harmful or not is another issue, but even before we get to that point there is the question of why on earth anybody would do it. Why should I wish to consume modified food? Was there something wrong with the original? If there is, don't eat it.

yes, but I'm not arguing against the technology itself, just that I don't want it for me, and it seems pointless.

So I think that we are getting to the crux of it, Ryan. What Kola and others are rebelling against is an agenda that is being pushed on us by people who have decided that this is what is best and we don't get a say in it.

Wow! In the above quote I even blatantly take your side.

The arguments for or against GMO as a process are therefore distractions. I prefer to focus on motive, because it is there that you will find the real reason for what is going on, as well as the real reason for the reaction against it.

Incidentally, I don't think that the real motive is this benevolent desire to feed the world. It seems more likely that the real motive is a desire to control the world's food supply. Full spectrum dominance.

Here is the woman that was on KPFK the other day, Dr. Vandana Shiva. I haven't investigated it enough to come to definitive conclusions, only to say that i liked her approach, focusing less on the technology itself, and more on the geopolitical reasons that the technology is being developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva

Above I link to an extremely anti-gmo author and speak approvingly of her method

I strongly doubt that your preference is to assume safety until proven otherwise. That would be a highly risky position. Imagine the same policy with regards to who you sleep with. A reasonable case by case strategy is to start from the position that you do not know, and use proper precautions. Does that make sense?

And above, I even express severe misgivings over J'raxis' statement that he prefers to presume safety until proven otherwise.

And you are mad at me?  I would think you would be happy with me for presenting your arguments without the gigantic chip on my shoulder that turns people off to it.

[John Edward Mercier]

I see only two option... on is for the free market to decide against GMO, or to bring the government into to ban. I personally don't so the 'no options' situation existing here.

[J’raxis 270145]

Are you happy now? Because you and others are following "The Jraxi Law" I am forced to give up my rights.

And according to the "kola law," Monsanto, et al., should be forcibly stopped from growing GM crops?

Caleb's take on this satisfies both sides. If you don't like the mainstream food supply being full of GM produce, grow your own food and be done with it.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

All food is GM... it's just that we actually know something about some of the genes in the "GM" food.

The "but our ancestors ate it" isn't a very good argument for lots of foods... our ancestors didn't eat any North American foods until very recently. That said, I'd worry a lot more about machine-modified food than weird North American maize genes... trans fats, absence of fiber, absence of vitamins and trace minerals are certainly bad for us.

[NJLiberty]

All food is GM... it's just that we actually know something about some of the genes in the "GM" food.

That is true to a point, but there is a vast huge difference between crossing corn A with corn B to create hybrid corn C, and splicing in genetic material from other species. They have certainly through the centuries modified crops through selective breeding. Most of our current crops from corn, to tomatoes, to lettuce, barely resemble their ancient ancestors, but they are still genetically corn, tomatoes, and lettuce. They aren't part corn/part beetle, part tomato/part lizard, or even part corn/part tomato.

I couldn't go out in my garden and cross a tomato with my broccoli no matter how hard I tried, or cross my chard with my rhubarb even though they look pretty similar. I can grow my kohlrabi in between my squash because I know they can't cross-pollinate each other.

The kind of genetic engineering Monsanto and other companies are undertaking goes way beyond creating new hybrids. They are creating new organisms. What concerns me with this is there is no way to tell how these new organisms will ultimately affect the "pure" crops. They may very well turn out to be the greatest crops we've ever seen, or they may be the most dangerous. No on will know unfortunately until we get there.

If I were of a different mindset, I would advocate banning these things from being used commercially until we could be sure of what their long term effects would be, but it would be wrong of me to force them from engaging in their business. So until such time as we do know what the effects are I will continue to grow my own fruits and vegetables and sit back and wait and see.

I do agree with you though, the machine modified foods that line our shelves worry me much more than Monsanto does. A look at the ingredients list of most processed foods is scary, and who knows what doesn't make it onto those lists or is buried under the headings like "natural and artificial flavors."

George

[Ron Helwig]

All food is GM... it's just that we actually know something about some of the genes in the "GM" food.

That is true to a point, but there is a vast huge difference between crossing corn A with corn B to create hybrid corn C, and splicing in genetic material from other species.

Correct, there is a huge difference. The former is basically just tossing stuff together and hoping for a good outcome. It isn't very safe, and is very wasteful. The latter is much safer and more efficient.

You are also confusing things here by comparing "crossing...to create hybrid" and "splicing in genetic material from other species".
What "greenies" think:

	crossing	splicing
Single Species	OK, but allows 'evil profit'	Evil
Multiple Species	Unholy	Frankenstein

The reality:

	crossing	splicing
Single Species	random	scientific and testable
Multiple Species	failure	scientific and testable

Note that the splicing is the same, regardless of the number of species from which the genetic material is drawn. That's because it IS the same. At the level at which DNA manipulation occurs, there is no notion of species. Its all just ATCG.

[StrongArm]

GMO is playing God. That should be enough to ban it.

[Dylboz]

GMO is playing God. That should be enough to ban it.

You're in the wrong place for that kind of talk, bub. Banning implies the use of force to prevent something. Not a popular idea (except with Kola) here. And who is this "God" you speak of? In what way can you determine the areas which we should leave to "God" and which areas we are free to play with? Are there objective limits? A rule book on genes and biotechnology? I'm curious...