If they were as Proud of their GMO's as you are, they would VOLUNTARILY label them in the food, NOT BLOCK the labeling, which (as I already pointed out) they did.
I mean here I am watching CNBC (see, I DO watch both sides)... Here's CNBC talking about "scummy counterfeiter's" cashing in on Designer labels and here's Monsanto, cashing in on Food by NOT, BY NOT labeling their GMO's AND letting them corrupt organic crops AND THEN Suing the organic farmers.
A hydrocarbon IS technically organic! I think that's what I just said...
Organic elements are hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, sulphur and phosphorus. Add trace inorganic elements like iron, calcium and copper and you have 99.999% of what makes up all living things.
PVC has chlorine in it, which is not an organic element. DDT has chlorine in it as well. That's why they're toxic.
If you could replace pesticides like DDT with something organic, why wouldn't you do it?
@CBlargh They're not replacing pesticides, they're putting them IN the food + STILL spraying.
Not everything in natural soil is “organic”. The component of BT Corn that derives from soil and kills caterpillars concentrates in our food and drink. ALL farm raised meat incl. Fish is fed corn, cows SHOULD eat grass. Still more; GMO Corn Syrup sweetens and GMO Soy boosts protein in our foods and drinks.
They want profit, you like to argue and want to win. I fight for important matters, like this one.
I think you're talking about Roundup. With Roundup Ready GMOs, they're spraying herbicide, but that's just one type of genetic modification (and glyphosate is made of only organic elements).
Right, not everything in the soil is organic, but every bacterium is.
BT toxin breaks down easily in the sun and it doesn't concentrate in our food and drink; it would never make it through the corn syrup refining process.
I want people to know food science, not have crazy dietary paranoia.
@CBlargh So then, give me a strong sense of your career/education background. I'm not interested in having you reveal your identity, I just want to know if you are reading this stuff and typing it at the same time.
I disagree that this is all sunshine and good news - would you eat the deformed fish that you caught? Because we are deforming food gene's.
Paranoid? How is it that Bankers can profit from mortgage fraud, Big Oil is the king of better idea crushers but the GMO business is true blue?
My undergraduate education was at an institution fairly well-known for its medical school, but what I know about GMOs is easily discoverable online. Where'd you go to school?
I didn't say GMOs are all sunshine and good news, but all food is "deformed". Lab-modified organisms are as safe to eat as anything else.
It's not the technology that's bad, it's the human systems. Banking, GMO and even a tiny amount of oil exploration should still go on, just with way more regulation.
@CBlargh BS Elec Eng. Tech from well known school in the N.E. + more.
My point is that Gene Modification is modification to the DNA coding - it's taking the attribute and ENCODING it in the organism - It doesn't wash off!
So when you say that the poison of BT toxin breaks down in the Sun that's true, but ONLY when the REST of the organism decays to dust.
Also, it IS a virus and it IS live - it's the only mechanism able to penetrate a Gene's safeguards against mutations. Inert viruses do nothing.
Right, GMO proteins do not wash off. They do, however, break down in the acids of your stomache or the radiation of the sun into completely non-toxic molecules, so they are safe to eat and not dangerous to the environment.
There is more viral DNA naturally occurring in YOU than there is added to GMOs by genetic modification! The virus they use to move DNA from species to species does not contain DNA to replicate itself. It's just a shell. Don't stress.
When you modify a gene it's the DNA that you are changing. That is very difficult to accomplish, so we should scrutinize the results of the process. We also must remember that DNA is the LAST thing to break down. It does not decay in the sun nor in food processing.
Now, since we say "You are what you eat" for a reason and the majority of 10 year old children now have "six pack" abdominal's, well, I don't believe all of it is "good". Isn't diabetes rising? What about the environment?
Now you're just being silly. DNA is hella weak in comparison to some organic compounds, and it's not the DNA that's reactive, it's the proteins produced by it.
Kids have diabetes because they eat too damn much. Parents like to blame corn syrup, when THEY are the ones jamming it down their throats. It's frikkin child abuse.
As for the environment, there are lots of ways humans impact it negatively, but global warming is by far the most dangerous and pressing.
@CBlargh DNA are the building blocks to life, the key to GMO manipulation and the core of the danger they represent should the suicide gene replicate itself and start sterilizing other forms of plant life, it's one of the critical points that I have been trying to make this whole time.
It feels like you're quoting Scientific American, the Fox News of Science.
I recommend FreeSpeechTV all the time, they and LinkTV are the only channels I have seen that take NO corporate money. What a difference!
DNA is the blueprint for life, this is true. It is also useless without the TRNA and the rest of the mechanism of the cell that allows it to reproduce itself. By itself it's non-toxic. It must be, since it's in every cell in your body, right?
Please explain to me how an organism that commits suicide is going to replicate itself.
Free Speech TV and LinkTV are some of the very few outlets that lean too far left for me. I prefer NPR, cause I'm radically impartial like that...
@CBlargh It doesn't "commit suicide", it is Sterile. Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto (for "product ownership") when his Organic Soybeans had been pollinated with Soy from nearby farms growing Monsanto Soy.
It's like a guy with a vasectomy having sex with a fertile woman who is ovulating - sex happened but no baby. Women live a long time but crops live for LESS THAN A YEAR.
It won't take too many years for sterile pollen blowing in the wind to block enough fertile plants! OK?
Okay, so explain to me how a gene in a sterile plant is supposed to spread... Were you under the impression that the seeds plants produce weren't enough to grow plants to replace them? If it doesn't spread, it doesn't matter.
The canola in the Schmeiser case didn't have any replication suppression genes in it, and the case is probably why Monsanto created them!
The case itself isn't so much about GMO technology or pollution as corporate greed (as I said before).
@CBlargh We agree that corporate greed is a problem. I say that greed motivates them enough that harm is not considered as much as profit, examples like uncompensated oil spills, mortgage fraud...
Let me put the seed problem in human terms again: Imagine MILLIONS of women marrying but all of their husbands are sterile. Now imagine sterile pollen blowing onto fertile, non-GMO crops each season. Soon you are drastically reducing the number of fertile seeds (children) because crops mate just once.
Right... were you under the impression that fertile pollen is in short supply?
If it turns out seed yield of neighbouring farms is truly affected by the sterile pollen of GMO crops, I'd say the business has an obligation to compensate the farmer whose seed has been affected...
... but you will never see this case made, because pollen is so overproduced by plants, you will never run out of fertile seeds. Understand now?
@CBlargh Actually I feel like I'm Billy Crystal, you're Daniel Stern, we're talking about VCR's and the movie is "City Slickers". If you're going to be proud that you are middle of the road then look at both sides, not milquetoast in the middle. NPR/PBS will never cross the line to criticize their corporate donors. If you listened to the hard Right you would see why FSTV and LinkTV are so important.
I guess you weren't paying attention when Schmeiser's crop was affected but Monsanto sued HIM!
@CBlargh One side of your mouth wants to increase yield, the other side of your mouth doesn't care that an organic crops with viable seeds will have a LOWER yield if more farmers drink the same Kool-Aid as you.
Why? Your GMO's mature sooner and take-up more water in a drought - so MORE sterile pollen is on the wind in most seasons. Oh Yeah, don't confuse pollen (sperm) with seeds (babies).
There is now a Seed Bank in Europe - why do nations spend so much money thinking they're smarter than you?
Did the GMOs sue Schmeiser or did the company that produced them?
Yield refers to product produced, not percentage of seed fertile. A neighbouring farmer may have to increase the amount of seed she spreads in order to grow the same amount of crops, and for this she should be compensated (if any measurable deficit occurs)... but a percentage of infertile seed by itself will not decrease yield.
It sounds like you're saying GMO is bad when it spreads (as in the Schmeiser case) and bad when it doesn't (because companies charge farmers for sterile seed)... which one would be better?
GMOs have been produced which are salt-tolerant, requiring less water, not more. If you're talking about ethylene-ripened tomatoes, they are usually selectively engineered, not GMO.
I didn't say FSTV and LinkTV were unimportant, I said they leaned too far left for me. I'm angrily, aggressively rational which puts me to the center-left on most issues (but not all).
I believe seed banks are to preserve genetic diversity of heirloom crops, which I am all in favour of. If it turns out a monoculture is not resistant to a new disease, we can mine the seed bank for a resistant organism... but I can't see how this has anything to do with GMO. We already have huge, non-GMO monocultures grown all over the world.
Look, you have to know what something is before you decide you don't like it. You're talking about farming practises and corporate greed that have nothing to do with GMO. GMO is not one sterilising, water-sucking, earth-destroying thing, it's a technique that can incorporate almost any biological feature into crops and animals that we eat... just like with selective breeding, but faster.
Next time, please read up on a subject before you take a position.
@CBlargh So, if you got 5 replies, then I can take 3.
You said "...it's a technique that can incorporate almost any biological feature into crops and animals that we eat..."
Who said I wanted a concentrated amount of bug killer INSIDE the plant? Who said I wanted my food to grow without freezing? Ship without bruising? Grow without nutrients? MBA's are NOT farmers and they are so isolated from the people that eat the food that caring only about their bonus feels just fine to them. How about you?
@CBlargh A corporate charter states that, by law, a corporation's reason for existence is to "make money" for it's shareholders (I'm not making that up). Stop acting like a farmer and a corporation are the same, they are not.
@CBlargh "Drought tolerant" crops are Not the same as "requiring less water". Monsanto and the others can keep their hands off the seed bank, it was setup BECAUSE of, NOT for them.
Explaining things would be a lot simpler if you consider this: Today's greed is not just about profit, it's about GROWTH. Because we tax capital gains so low (GOP wants zero) salary is less important than stock option's. That means GROWTH in revenue: Jobs go overseas, trade agreements, DEREGULATION... Treachery? Yes.
@CBlargh I don't mind if this debate ends but I have 2 comments.
This morning's Deutche Welle news stated that BASF is closing their German GMO division and moving the research group to the USA. BASF developed a potato but GMO's are unpopular in Europe (the EU requires GMO labeling).
3 Things you've said here: "Next time, please read up on a subject before you take a position.", "but what I know about GMOs is easily discoverable online" and "What you call 'GMO'".
Yes, greed, treachery, GOP, MBAs, etc. You may be right about these things. What do they have to do with genetic engineering?
If you've studied GMOs, why do you have no GMO-related argument against them? Why do you need to blame them for the unethical business practises of their creators?
Europeans are strangely obsessed with GMO for some reason. Everyone is slightly irrational when it comes to food, but I suspect the tendency is stronger in Europe than in the US.
If you don't want to eat GMO food, I would suggest you not buy it. Were you under the impression you were the only human on the planet? If you have some reasonable, rational argument that GMOs hurt the environment or consumers, please put it forward.
@CBlargh Well, things are getting a bit mean in this debate and I am as much to blame for that.
I, and many people, would choose not to eat GMO's if we COULD choose. Europe has been given that choice.
Many Vegetarians choose that diet because it is "healthier" than eating meat - I don't disagree but what many do not know (ABC News @ 4 AM had a texting jaywalker) is that a major source of protein for them, soy, is now GMO. Even the specifically Organic version they purchase may be tainted now.
@CBlargh Oh, but the drought tolerant thing. Plants take water in cycles (especially in a single day) - until GMO's basically "programmed" plants to be the bully of the water table. Take water but don't cycle it back to the soil - not only are they "drought tolerant" from storing water like a camel but you might (scientists might) say that they "steal" from their environment.
I'm not lying, I've been learning about this for about a decade.
All plants store water like a camel. All plants "steal" water from the environment. You haven't named a single problem about GMO food that wouldn't equally apply to non-GMO food.
I would be fine with food being labelled "GMO", but everything you eat is already essentially GMO. It's silly to pretend it's somehow bad for you and the obsession with it diverts attention away from more serious problems like climate change, sustainability and species conservation.
@CBlargh Plants respire water at night, plants also take and return water to the ground via their root system in the course of day - Drought Tolerant GMO crops do not. Now it is clear that I have indeed learned more about GMO's than you have and I'll terminate this debate - I enjoy a good discussion of ideas but I dislike arguing with someone for the sake of arguing.
When the day arrives that you accept the same concerns, you may breath a silent thanks to me - I shall thank you for nothing less.
@CBlargh ...you might recall that this debate began when I shared your concerns about Climate change, sustainability and ALL species must survive and thrive.
I also want to add my concern about pollution of air, land, water and groundwater. A move to renewable energy instead of highly profitable yet taxpayer subsidized fossil and fissile fuels. There are plenty more concerns that I have.
I also began by saying that people are stupid. Kim K gets more hits than Earth. BUT I am all done here.
@CBlargh I noted from mail, I had read just 2 of your 3 comments.
People like me, "we", get involved with Food AND Air AND Water. We're funny like that 'cause we care what goes into our bodies.
Earlier, I thought your defensiveness was from working at a GMO Co. I don't think that now.
Earlier, I defined just some GMO specific concerns. Understanding possible harm is easier if one asks "why": It's not "Better food" it's more profitable/transportable food. They give to new markets, then $ell it.
If you don't understand that a plant which requires less water requires a farmer to pump less water from the ground to put on it, I'm afraid there's no hope for you.
You didn't name a single concern you had about GMO that had anything to do with GMO. In fact, you searched through every possible combination of invented dangers you possibly could think of, even going so far as to say DNA is toxic...
Your opposition to GMO is not based on facts, but conspiracy theory and nonsense.
@CBlargh The video's I recommended (and hope others view) contain more depth than 500 char's permit but you don't understand. For the 3rd time you have asked the same question about water. Life without water hasn't been invented, cell walls begin to break down in water's absence – Biology 101. Bigger plants sooner = More water.
I tried to bring you along or define “why” because we were YouTube friends but I won't carry you. You've used "conspiracy" while debating others. Learn, don't obfuscate.
It's not like I haven't given you a chance to advance a rational reason you don't like GMOs, and it's not like there aren't valid reasons to be concerned; places where endangered species have become entirely dependent on human cultivation, for example.
Instead, you're insisting GMOs are the reason we're getting nasty-tasting unripe tomatoes, when I've just explained to you the ethylene process can be done with any tomato.
It sounds like dogmatic, unscientific nonsense to me...
@CBlargh Since when is a hydrocarbon inorganic? Oil starts out bad but interestingly, it's the "tampering" that completely modifies the liquid oil into something unrecognizable. Something that is a solid NOT a liquid, it's toxic and it will last for many generations before breaking down: PVC.
Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage a living or non-living organism. Don't know anyone who eats PVC but I guess if we were to EAT IT the toxicity would be much worse... YOUR turn...
6 Billion people on the Planet, just 600 Gorilla's left, maybe 3000 Tigers.
We've hunted thousands of species to extinction, polluted or crowded out thousands of others. I hate people, they're stupid. This planet is not going to sustain the children of today's children and it is the fault of the inhumane human race for almighty money. Maybe we should taste money so we get used to it. That way, when clean air and water are gone and we have overfished and GMO'd to the brink, we can eat money.
I agree with absolutely everything you said, except for the idea that GMO's are inherently bad. Everything we eat is already a GMO, we just have the tools now to modify the organisms much faster.
@CBlargh I don't believe that profit motivation is as good a check on changes to genetics as is evolution and natural selection. The European Union requires food labeling, giving Consumers a choice when they shop.
Because this drastically reduced the amount of GMO's that would sell in Europe, Monsanto and the others lobbied against food labeling in the USA and won.
GMO's are BAD for the environment. Search "Monster Salmon and Butterflies"
I'll bet guys age 50 wish they hadn't 'Roided as teens.
It's not profit motive that has driven human tampering, it's efficiency. From the banana to the cow, nothing we eat exists in its original state, and if it did, we'd need many more resources to produce our food which would leave much less wilderness.
There are definitely some issues with some GMO's, and Monsanto is not a good actor (there is nothing wrong with labelling food), but GMO's are not dangerous in and of themselves, and can reduce the amount of land we need to feed ourselves.
@CBlargh Breeding to get a cow or grafting to get a sweet apple is NOT the same as adding a suicide gene to seeds so that farmers have to PURCHASE seeds instead of save the best seeds.
It's a solution looking for a problem, a false tragedy that people lived on "just a dollar a day". They were self sustaining - they were sustenance farmers, hunters, etc. If we CARED they'd be the same but with healthcare. Instead they work in sweatshops and consume, great plan.
I think you're mixing apples and oranges (to stick with the food metaphor). Grafting puts two different organisms together. Selective breeding changes the genetics of an organism as does gene modification in the laboratory. There's no fundamental difference between a selectively altered organism and a lab-altered organism.
Endless human reproduction has never been self-sustaining and to my mind, a suicide gene is an excellent way to keep GMO DNA out of the environment.
@CBlargh Look, they have introduced the Jellyfish anti-freezing enzyme into crops and as I recall, the introduction to the plant is via a virus as a carrier for the gene's - but I am sensing that Bio-Chem might be how your bread is buttered so feel free to bring me up to date on that.
It is clear that since you responded to my earlier comment in the same hour, that you Have Not watched "Monster Salmon and Butterflies" which addresses your comment that nature and laboratory are the same.
@CBlargh But more importantly, the Suicide gene is a MONEY MAKER, not a means to contain their experiments. These clowns put a college student but corporate wannabe 'tard into a GMO corn research project. With their assistance and approval, she grew corn in a regular cornfield but with paper caps stapled over the corn tassels (the part that pollinates it's own and other corn stalks). She REMOVED the covers, to get samples, several times - clean room, lab safe practices? NO! Ahh, but who cares?
@CBlargh Finally, if this debate ends & you never DO Google Percy Schmeiser nor view the Documentary I mentioned, I want to be ON The RECORD saying: GMO's are UNSAFE because:
Oil corporations are the wealthiest companies EVER by providing something we "need"... ...and then there's food.
The $1/day people I mentioned lived on land that sustained them. Corporations now control USA TENANT farmers (not owners). Land is true wealth.
They gut the EPA, test their own products, patent & control life.
Yes, I know about the legal and ethical problems of agribusiness. They aren't caused by GMO's, they're caused by people (to paraphrase Mitt Romney).
Why would you think unethical business practises and poor environmental research standards would change if GMO's were to disappear?
They are safe to eat and increase crop yield without toxic, inorganic pesticides. There are environmental issues with some GMO's, but being hysterical about them is counterproductive fear-mongering.
@CBlargh Fear mongering? I would argue that you're saying "Crystal Meth is fine, it's the pusher".
GMO's are rushed to market, they test their own products (Grade your own test?).
Corporations exist for PROFIT, PERIOD, Full Stop. Patent a necessary (or Constitutionally unqualified) invention? MORE profit. "The Corporation" documentary, MORE evidence you will ignore?
Percy's soy crop was contaminated with Monsanto soy, an easy jump. What happens if/when the Suicide Gene jumps to another crop?
Are you saying GMO's are addictive as crystal meth? They might be if an addictive protein is engineered into them. What evidence do you have that this has been done?
Did the GMO's rush themselves to market or circumvent scientific testing on themselves? Did the GMO's put profit above the public good? ... or was it the people who made them?
If the suicide gene jumped to another crop, the alteration would quickly die out. That seems like the entire point of a suicide gene...
@CBlargh You're twisting my words, I'm not separating Frankenstein's monster from it's evil creator but clearly you want to.
GMO's are introduced to their new host via viruses, who's to say it will never have "life"? Self-propagation will indeed take it out of the hands of the (evil) creator(s) who will beg to wash their hands of it, like an oil spill.
The Irish potato blight, the influenza pandemic of 1918, these jumped to and killed most of their hosts BEFORE they ran themselves out.
Exactly! What you call "GMO" is not a monster, it's just a more efficient way of doing the same thing humans have been doing with selective breeding for thousands of years.
You're right that the people developing GMOs are probably not taking the precautions they should, which would suggest to me we need better scientific oversight and more federal research funding.
There's no actual virus in GMOs, scientists are just using viral injection techniques to get the DNA into the host.
@CBlargh I think you're agreeing to something I have not said. GMO's are UNTESTED for any length of time. We live for what? 80 years or more? The Redwoods started to grow before the Roman Empire, Rome fell but not the trees.
You think too highly of GMO pushers, they don't push the best ideas, they push ideas that make money.
Oh, and GMO corn is planted, then a Monsanto Spray activates the corn but kills the weeds, i.e. it IS a pesticide. So they STILL use that PLUS nicotine based pesticides.
1. GMO corn is feed for ALL farm raised meat, including fish.
There is medical sterilization, chemical sterilization and now GMO sterilization but releasing it into nature means that nature may in fact "adapt" it, Bees are now dying, is it Nicotine pesticides? Or GMO's? Will corn pollen interfere with TREE reproduction?
2. The Irish potato blight was caused in part by reliance on a common potato strain - GMO Corn is usually also one strain and therefore vulnerable to the same problem.
@CBlargh Let me be more clear. Your words: "There are environmental issues with some GMO's"
WHICH GMO's? They are masquerading as food. A microgram of plutonium is sufficient to cause cancer and it may occur in 30 years or much sooner but it is statistically certain that anyone ingesting a microgram of plutonium will get cancer.
So how do you know which GMO's are bad using the same time frame? If they are, how do you get them out of the food supply after 30 years?
All the food you eat is genetically modified. I don't know how much clearer I can be about that.
Plutonium represents a nuclear danger to life. We are talking about chemical alterations, not nuclear ones. These are two fundamentally different things.
GMOs don't even have inorganic metals in them. They are completely organic. They have to be.
As far as I'm concerned, if they require less land, water and toxic pesticides, we should use them. It's just a no-brainer.
@CBlargh You mock organic, quote Monsanto, refuse to view evidence I offer. Got just 18 seconds? watch?v=qsIWaUZowE0
It is not “All foods”, for example: Nuts. Seed or breed selection IS NOT the same as a GMO.
Genetic Modification encodes deliberate changes to DNA that may otherwise never occur (for good reason), then dispenses it on a massive scale. Chemistry is just the catalyst. Traditional chemistry may mutate genes - smaller scale but a concern.
@CBlargh I thought at first that you may have worked at a company like Monsanto (lab tech or receptionist, etc.) and that was why you were defending them.
I have no interest in entertaining a debate with you if you insist "No nut you eat existed in the same form before humans began our tampering."
I hope that anyone else reading this will check the information I posted.
All you'd need do is google "selective breeding of nuts" and you'd find a heap ton of information about why you are wrong, including an entire book by Luther Burbank on the subject.
NOTHING we eat existed in nature before we began tampering with it... unless you're eating wild venison or something, and even that has been altered by our presence.
The USDA organic definition excludes organic GMOs, which I think weakens the standard. It's a false label and anti-science nonsense.
@CBlargh "Organic GMO". What a ridiculous statement.
Brazil nuts are gathered.
You keep insisting on blending selective breeding and other farming practices with GMO's - and that is without bothering to watch anything about GMO's.
You think a genetically modified ORGANISM isn't ORGANIC? o_O
Let me help you out here: Snake venom is organic, but if you leave it out in the sun long enough, it's perfectly harmless. INorganic substances like lead, mercury and aluminum NEVER lose their harmful properties, no matter how long you leave them in the sun.
The arbitrary exclusion of lab-modified organisms from the organic definition means crops which thrive without inorganic pesticide can't benefit from the label.
@armandohernandez199 The most effective way save this beast seal is start raisin the munk seal for food. We are never running out of cows or chickens the Chinese have plenty of cats and dogs.
Well, that's very true, Athena! If humans were to raise these animals for food, they probably would not be endangered.
The problem with raising seals for food is that they need a huge amount of water and a ton of seafood to survive. You can't just throw them into pastures like you can with cows.
I'm also going to guess their meat is fatty and salty. You might have a hard sell with taste.
I don't think people would have to miss out on the beach to keep the Hawaiian Monk Seal from going extinct, there would just have to be a certain number of coves off-limits to humans.
I think most people would be fine travelling a little further to lay on the sand in order to preserve this species for future generations, don't you?
@CBlargh ...OK 4
If they were as Proud of their GMO's as you are, they would VOLUNTARILY label them in the food, NOT BLOCK the labeling, which (as I already pointed out) they did.
I mean here I am watching CNBC (see, I DO watch both sides)... Here's CNBC talking about "scummy counterfeiter's" cashing in on Designer labels and here's Monsanto, cashing in on Food by NOT, BY NOT labeling their GMO's AND letting them corrupt organic crops AND THEN Suing the organic farmers.
OH what's NOT to like?
CI9TK 1 month ago
A hydrocarbon IS technically organic! I think that's what I just said...
Organic elements are hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, sulphur and phosphorus. Add trace inorganic elements like iron, calcium and copper and you have 99.999% of what makes up all living things.
PVC has chlorine in it, which is not an organic element. DDT has chlorine in it as well. That's why they're toxic.
If you could replace pesticides like DDT with something organic, why wouldn't you do it?
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh They're not replacing pesticides, they're putting them IN the food + STILL spraying.
Not everything in natural soil is “organic”. The component of BT Corn that derives from soil and kills caterpillars concentrates in our food and drink. ALL farm raised meat incl. Fish is fed corn, cows SHOULD eat grass. Still more; GMO Corn Syrup sweetens and GMO Soy boosts protein in our foods and drinks.
They want profit, you like to argue and want to win. I fight for important matters, like this one.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
I think you're talking about Roundup. With Roundup Ready GMOs, they're spraying herbicide, but that's just one type of genetic modification (and glyphosate is made of only organic elements).
Right, not everything in the soil is organic, but every bacterium is.
BT toxin breaks down easily in the sun and it doesn't concentrate in our food and drink; it would never make it through the corn syrup refining process.
I want people to know food science, not have crazy dietary paranoia.
CBlargh 1 month ago
Comment removed
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CBlargh So then, give me a strong sense of your career/education background. I'm not interested in having you reveal your identity, I just want to know if you are reading this stuff and typing it at the same time.
I disagree that this is all sunshine and good news - would you eat the deformed fish that you caught? Because we are deforming food gene's.
Paranoid? How is it that Bankers can profit from mortgage fraud, Big Oil is the king of better idea crushers but the GMO business is true blue?
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
My undergraduate education was at an institution fairly well-known for its medical school, but what I know about GMOs is easily discoverable online. Where'd you go to school?
I didn't say GMOs are all sunshine and good news, but all food is "deformed". Lab-modified organisms are as safe to eat as anything else.
It's not the technology that's bad, it's the human systems. Banking, GMO and even a tiny amount of oil exploration should still go on, just with way more regulation.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh BS Elec Eng. Tech from well known school in the N.E. + more.
My point is that Gene Modification is modification to the DNA coding - it's taking the attribute and ENCODING it in the organism - It doesn't wash off!
So when you say that the poison of BT toxin breaks down in the Sun that's true, but ONLY when the REST of the organism decays to dust.
Also, it IS a virus and it IS live - it's the only mechanism able to penetrate a Gene's safeguards against mutations. Inert viruses do nothing.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
Right, GMO proteins do not wash off. They do, however, break down in the acids of your stomache or the radiation of the sun into completely non-toxic molecules, so they are safe to eat and not dangerous to the environment.
There is more viral DNA naturally occurring in YOU than there is added to GMOs by genetic modification! The virus they use to move DNA from species to species does not contain DNA to replicate itself. It's just a shell. Don't stress.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh
When you modify a gene it's the DNA that you are changing. That is very difficult to accomplish, so we should scrutinize the results of the process. We also must remember that DNA is the LAST thing to break down. It does not decay in the sun nor in food processing.
Now, since we say "You are what you eat" for a reason and the majority of 10 year old children now have "six pack" abdominal's, well, I don't believe all of it is "good". Isn't diabetes rising? What about the environment?
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
Now you're just being silly. DNA is hella weak in comparison to some organic compounds, and it's not the DNA that's reactive, it's the proteins produced by it.
Kids have diabetes because they eat too damn much. Parents like to blame corn syrup, when THEY are the ones jamming it down their throats. It's frikkin child abuse.
As for the environment, there are lots of ways humans impact it negatively, but global warming is by far the most dangerous and pressing.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh DNA are the building blocks to life, the key to GMO manipulation and the core of the danger they represent should the suicide gene replicate itself and start sterilizing other forms of plant life, it's one of the critical points that I have been trying to make this whole time.
It feels like you're quoting Scientific American, the Fox News of Science.
I recommend FreeSpeechTV all the time, they and LinkTV are the only channels I have seen that take NO corporate money. What a difference!
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
DNA is the blueprint for life, this is true. It is also useless without the TRNA and the rest of the mechanism of the cell that allows it to reproduce itself. By itself it's non-toxic. It must be, since it's in every cell in your body, right?
Please explain to me how an organism that commits suicide is going to replicate itself.
Free Speech TV and LinkTV are some of the very few outlets that lean too far left for me. I prefer NPR, cause I'm radically impartial like that...
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh It doesn't "commit suicide", it is Sterile. Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto (for "product ownership") when his Organic Soybeans had been pollinated with Soy from nearby farms growing Monsanto Soy.
It's like a guy with a vasectomy having sex with a fertile woman who is ovulating - sex happened but no baby. Women live a long time but crops live for LESS THAN A YEAR.
It won't take too many years for sterile pollen blowing in the wind to block enough fertile plants! OK?
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
Okay, so explain to me how a gene in a sterile plant is supposed to spread... Were you under the impression that the seeds plants produce weren't enough to grow plants to replace them? If it doesn't spread, it doesn't matter.
The canola in the Schmeiser case didn't have any replication suppression genes in it, and the case is probably why Monsanto created them!
The case itself isn't so much about GMO technology or pollution as corporate greed (as I said before).
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh We agree that corporate greed is a problem. I say that greed motivates them enough that harm is not considered as much as profit, examples like uncompensated oil spills, mortgage fraud...
Let me put the seed problem in human terms again: Imagine MILLIONS of women marrying but all of their husbands are sterile. Now imagine sterile pollen blowing onto fertile, non-GMO crops each season. Soon you are drastically reducing the number of fertile seeds (children) because crops mate just once.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
Right... were you under the impression that fertile pollen is in short supply?
If it turns out seed yield of neighbouring farms is truly affected by the sterile pollen of GMO crops, I'd say the business has an obligation to compensate the farmer whose seed has been affected...
... but you will never see this case made, because pollen is so overproduced by plants, you will never run out of fertile seeds. Understand now?
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh Actually I feel like I'm Billy Crystal, you're Daniel Stern, we're talking about VCR's and the movie is "City Slickers". If you're going to be proud that you are middle of the road then look at both sides, not milquetoast in the middle. NPR/PBS will never cross the line to criticize their corporate donors. If you listened to the hard Right you would see why FSTV and LinkTV are so important.
I guess you weren't paying attention when Schmeiser's crop was affected but Monsanto sued HIM!
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CBlargh One side of your mouth wants to increase yield, the other side of your mouth doesn't care that an organic crops with viable seeds will have a LOWER yield if more farmers drink the same Kool-Aid as you.
Why? Your GMO's mature sooner and take-up more water in a drought - so MORE sterile pollen is on the wind in most seasons. Oh Yeah, don't confuse pollen (sperm) with seeds (babies).
There is now a Seed Bank in Europe - why do nations spend so much money thinking they're smarter than you?
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
Did the GMOs sue Schmeiser or did the company that produced them?
Yield refers to product produced, not percentage of seed fertile. A neighbouring farmer may have to increase the amount of seed she spreads in order to grow the same amount of crops, and for this she should be compensated (if any measurable deficit occurs)... but a percentage of infertile seed by itself will not decrease yield.
CBlargh 1 month ago
It sounds like you're saying GMO is bad when it spreads (as in the Schmeiser case) and bad when it doesn't (because companies charge farmers for sterile seed)... which one would be better?
GMOs have been produced which are salt-tolerant, requiring less water, not more. If you're talking about ethylene-ripened tomatoes, they are usually selectively engineered, not GMO.
CBlargh 1 month ago
I didn't say FSTV and LinkTV were unimportant, I said they leaned too far left for me. I'm angrily, aggressively rational which puts me to the center-left on most issues (but not all).
CBlargh 1 month ago
I believe seed banks are to preserve genetic diversity of heirloom crops, which I am all in favour of. If it turns out a monoculture is not resistant to a new disease, we can mine the seed bank for a resistant organism... but I can't see how this has anything to do with GMO. We already have huge, non-GMO monocultures grown all over the world.
CBlargh 1 month ago
Look, you have to know what something is before you decide you don't like it. You're talking about farming practises and corporate greed that have nothing to do with GMO. GMO is not one sterilising, water-sucking, earth-destroying thing, it's a technique that can incorporate almost any biological feature into crops and animals that we eat... just like with selective breeding, but faster.
Next time, please read up on a subject before you take a position.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh So, if you got 5 replies, then I can take 3.
You said "...it's a technique that can incorporate almost any biological feature into crops and animals that we eat..."
Who said I wanted a concentrated amount of bug killer INSIDE the plant? Who said I wanted my food to grow without freezing? Ship without bruising? Grow without nutrients? MBA's are NOT farmers and they are so isolated from the people that eat the food that caring only about their bonus feels just fine to them. How about you?
CI9TK 1 month ago
Comment removed
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CBlargh A corporate charter states that, by law, a corporation's reason for existence is to "make money" for it's shareholders (I'm not making that up). Stop acting like a farmer and a corporation are the same, they are not.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CBlargh "Drought tolerant" crops are Not the same as "requiring less water". Monsanto and the others can keep their hands off the seed bank, it was setup BECAUSE of, NOT for them.
Explaining things would be a lot simpler if you consider this: Today's greed is not just about profit, it's about GROWTH. Because we tax capital gains so low (GOP wants zero) salary is less important than stock option's. That means GROWTH in revenue: Jobs go overseas, trade agreements, DEREGULATION... Treachery? Yes.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CBlargh I don't mind if this debate ends but I have 2 comments.
This morning's Deutche Welle news stated that BASF is closing their German GMO division and moving the research group to the USA. BASF developed a potato but GMO's are unpopular in Europe (the EU requires GMO labeling).
3 Things you've said here: "Next time, please read up on a subject before you take a position.", "but what I know about GMOs is easily discoverable online" and "What you call 'GMO'".
I HAVE studied GMO's, have you?
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
Yes, greed, treachery, GOP, MBAs, etc. You may be right about these things. What do they have to do with genetic engineering?
If you've studied GMOs, why do you have no GMO-related argument against them? Why do you need to blame them for the unethical business practises of their creators?
Europeans are strangely obsessed with GMO for some reason. Everyone is slightly irrational when it comes to food, but I suspect the tendency is stronger in Europe than in the US.
CBlargh 1 month ago
If you don't want to eat GMO food, I would suggest you not buy it. Were you under the impression you were the only human on the planet? If you have some reasonable, rational argument that GMOs hurt the environment or consumers, please put it forward.
CBlargh 1 month ago
Otherwise, understand your opposition to GMO is your own personal, unscientific preference based on paranoia and superstition.
I'd say if all you have left is the bizarre notion that drought-tolerant crops don't require less water, you've just about run out of steam.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh Well, things are getting a bit mean in this debate and I am as much to blame for that.
I, and many people, would choose not to eat GMO's if we COULD choose. Europe has been given that choice.
Many Vegetarians choose that diet because it is "healthier" than eating meat - I don't disagree but what many do not know (ABC News @ 4 AM had a texting jaywalker) is that a major source of protein for them, soy, is now GMO. Even the specifically Organic version they purchase may be tainted now.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CBlargh Oh, but the drought tolerant thing. Plants take water in cycles (especially in a single day) - until GMO's basically "programmed" plants to be the bully of the water table. Take water but don't cycle it back to the soil - not only are they "drought tolerant" from storing water like a camel but you might (scientists might) say that they "steal" from their environment.
I'm not lying, I've been learning about this for about a decade.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
All plants store water like a camel. All plants "steal" water from the environment. You haven't named a single problem about GMO food that wouldn't equally apply to non-GMO food.
I would be fine with food being labelled "GMO", but everything you eat is already essentially GMO. It's silly to pretend it's somehow bad for you and the obsession with it diverts attention away from more serious problems like climate change, sustainability and species conservation.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh Plants respire water at night, plants also take and return water to the ground via their root system in the course of day - Drought Tolerant GMO crops do not. Now it is clear that I have indeed learned more about GMO's than you have and I'll terminate this debate - I enjoy a good discussion of ideas but I dislike arguing with someone for the sake of arguing.
When the day arrives that you accept the same concerns, you may breath a silent thanks to me - I shall thank you for nothing less.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CBlargh ...you might recall that this debate began when I shared your concerns about Climate change, sustainability and ALL species must survive and thrive.
I also want to add my concern about pollution of air, land, water and groundwater. A move to renewable energy instead of highly profitable yet taxpayer subsidized fossil and fissile fuels. There are plenty more concerns that I have.
I also began by saying that people are stupid. Kim K gets more hits than Earth. BUT I am all done here.
Fin.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CBlargh I noted from mail, I had read just 2 of your 3 comments.
People like me, "we", get involved with Food AND Air AND Water. We're funny like that 'cause we care what goes into our bodies.
Earlier, I thought your defensiveness was from working at a GMO Co. I don't think that now.
Earlier, I defined just some GMO specific concerns. Understanding possible harm is easier if one asks "why": It's not "Better food" it's more profitable/transportable food. They give to new markets, then $ell it.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
If you don't understand that a plant which requires less water requires a farmer to pump less water from the ground to put on it, I'm afraid there's no hope for you.
You didn't name a single concern you had about GMO that had anything to do with GMO. In fact, you searched through every possible combination of invented dangers you possibly could think of, even going so far as to say DNA is toxic...
Your opposition to GMO is not based on facts, but conspiracy theory and nonsense.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh The video's I recommended (and hope others view) contain more depth than 500 char's permit but you don't understand. For the 3rd time you have asked the same question about water. Life without water hasn't been invented, cell walls begin to break down in water's absence – Biology 101. Bigger plants sooner = More water.
I tried to bring you along or define “why” because we were YouTube friends but I won't carry you. You've used "conspiracy" while debating others. Learn, don't obfuscate.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
It's not like I haven't given you a chance to advance a rational reason you don't like GMOs, and it's not like there aren't valid reasons to be concerned; places where endangered species have become entirely dependent on human cultivation, for example.
Instead, you're insisting GMOs are the reason we're getting nasty-tasting unripe tomatoes, when I've just explained to you the ethylene process can be done with any tomato.
It sounds like dogmatic, unscientific nonsense to me...
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh Since when is a hydrocarbon inorganic? Oil starts out bad but interestingly, it's the "tampering" that completely modifies the liquid oil into something unrecognizable. Something that is a solid NOT a liquid, it's toxic and it will last for many generations before breaking down: PVC.
Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage a living or non-living organism. Don't know anyone who eats PVC but I guess if we were to EAT IT the toxicity would be much worse... YOUR turn...
CI9TK 1 month ago
Comment removed
CI9TK 1 month ago
Comment removed
CI9TK 1 month ago
Comment removed
CI9TK 1 month ago
6 Billion people on the Planet, just 600 Gorilla's left, maybe 3000 Tigers.
We've hunted thousands of species to extinction, polluted or crowded out thousands of others. I hate people, they're stupid. This planet is not going to sustain the children of today's children and it is the fault of the inhumane human race for almighty money. Maybe we should taste money so we get used to it. That way, when clean air and water are gone and we have overfished and GMO'd to the brink, we can eat money.
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CI9TK
I agree with absolutely everything you said, except for the idea that GMO's are inherently bad. Everything we eat is already a GMO, we just have the tools now to modify the organisms much faster.
CBlargh 2 months ago
@CBlargh I don't believe that profit motivation is as good a check on changes to genetics as is evolution and natural selection. The European Union requires food labeling, giving Consumers a choice when they shop.
Because this drastically reduced the amount of GMO's that would sell in Europe, Monsanto and the others lobbied against food labeling in the USA and won.
GMO's are BAD for the environment. Search "Monster Salmon and Butterflies"
I'll bet guys age 50 wish they hadn't 'Roided as teens.
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CI9TK
It's not profit motive that has driven human tampering, it's efficiency. From the banana to the cow, nothing we eat exists in its original state, and if it did, we'd need many more resources to produce our food which would leave much less wilderness.
There are definitely some issues with some GMO's, and Monsanto is not a good actor (there is nothing wrong with labelling food), but GMO's are not dangerous in and of themselves, and can reduce the amount of land we need to feed ourselves.
CBlargh 2 months ago
@CBlargh Breeding to get a cow or grafting to get a sweet apple is NOT the same as adding a suicide gene to seeds so that farmers have to PURCHASE seeds instead of save the best seeds.
It's a solution looking for a problem, a false tragedy that people lived on "just a dollar a day". They were self sustaining - they were sustenance farmers, hunters, etc. If we CARED they'd be the same but with healthcare. Instead they work in sweatshops and consume, great plan.
Oh yeah, Google Percy Schmeiser
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CI9TK
I think you're mixing apples and oranges (to stick with the food metaphor). Grafting puts two different organisms together. Selective breeding changes the genetics of an organism as does gene modification in the laboratory. There's no fundamental difference between a selectively altered organism and a lab-altered organism.
Endless human reproduction has never been self-sustaining and to my mind, a suicide gene is an excellent way to keep GMO DNA out of the environment.
CBlargh 2 months ago
@CBlargh Look, they have introduced the Jellyfish anti-freezing enzyme into crops and as I recall, the introduction to the plant is via a virus as a carrier for the gene's - but I am sensing that Bio-Chem might be how your bread is buttered so feel free to bring me up to date on that.
It is clear that since you responded to my earlier comment in the same hour, that you Have Not watched "Monster Salmon and Butterflies" which addresses your comment that nature and laboratory are the same.
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CBlargh But more importantly, the Suicide gene is a MONEY MAKER, not a means to contain their experiments. These clowns put a college student but corporate wannabe 'tard into a GMO corn research project. With their assistance and approval, she grew corn in a regular cornfield but with paper caps stapled over the corn tassels (the part that pollinates it's own and other corn stalks). She REMOVED the covers, to get samples, several times - clean room, lab safe practices? NO! Ahh, but who cares?
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CBlargh Finally, if this debate ends & you never DO Google Percy Schmeiser nor view the Documentary I mentioned, I want to be ON The RECORD saying: GMO's are UNSAFE because:
Oil corporations are the wealthiest companies EVER by providing something we "need"... ...and then there's food.
The $1/day people I mentioned lived on land that sustained them. Corporations now control USA TENANT farmers (not owners). Land is true wealth.
They gut the EPA, test their own products, patent & control life.
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CI9TK
Yes, I know about the legal and ethical problems of agribusiness. They aren't caused by GMO's, they're caused by people (to paraphrase Mitt Romney).
Why would you think unethical business practises and poor environmental research standards would change if GMO's were to disappear?
They are safe to eat and increase crop yield without toxic, inorganic pesticides. There are environmental issues with some GMO's, but being hysterical about them is counterproductive fear-mongering.
CBlargh 2 months ago
@CBlargh Fear mongering? I would argue that you're saying "Crystal Meth is fine, it's the pusher".
GMO's are rushed to market, they test their own products (Grade your own test?).
Corporations exist for PROFIT, PERIOD, Full Stop. Patent a necessary (or Constitutionally unqualified) invention? MORE profit. "The Corporation" documentary, MORE evidence you will ignore?
Percy's soy crop was contaminated with Monsanto soy, an easy jump. What happens if/when the Suicide Gene jumps to another crop?
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CI9TK
Are you saying GMO's are addictive as crystal meth? They might be if an addictive protein is engineered into them. What evidence do you have that this has been done?
Did the GMO's rush themselves to market or circumvent scientific testing on themselves? Did the GMO's put profit above the public good? ... or was it the people who made them?
If the suicide gene jumped to another crop, the alteration would quickly die out. That seems like the entire point of a suicide gene...
CBlargh 2 months ago
@CBlargh You're twisting my words, I'm not separating Frankenstein's monster from it's evil creator but clearly you want to.
GMO's are introduced to their new host via viruses, who's to say it will never have "life"? Self-propagation will indeed take it out of the hands of the (evil) creator(s) who will beg to wash their hands of it, like an oil spill.
The Irish potato blight, the influenza pandemic of 1918, these jumped to and killed most of their hosts BEFORE they ran themselves out.
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CI9TK
Exactly! What you call "GMO" is not a monster, it's just a more efficient way of doing the same thing humans have been doing with selective breeding for thousands of years.
You're right that the people developing GMOs are probably not taking the precautions they should, which would suggest to me we need better scientific oversight and more federal research funding.
There's no actual virus in GMOs, scientists are just using viral injection techniques to get the DNA into the host.
CBlargh 2 months ago
Comment removed
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CBlargh I think you're agreeing to something I have not said. GMO's are UNTESTED for any length of time. We live for what? 80 years or more? The Redwoods started to grow before the Roman Empire, Rome fell but not the trees.
You think too highly of GMO pushers, they don't push the best ideas, they push ideas that make money.
Oh, and GMO corn is planted, then a Monsanto Spray activates the corn but kills the weeds, i.e. it IS a pesticide. So they STILL use that PLUS nicotine based pesticides.
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CBlargh
1. GMO corn is feed for ALL farm raised meat, including fish.
There is medical sterilization, chemical sterilization and now GMO sterilization but releasing it into nature means that nature may in fact "adapt" it, Bees are now dying, is it Nicotine pesticides? Or GMO's? Will corn pollen interfere with TREE reproduction?
2. The Irish potato blight was caused in part by reliance on a common potato strain - GMO Corn is usually also one strain and therefore vulnerable to the same problem.
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CBlargh Let me be more clear. Your words: "There are environmental issues with some GMO's"
WHICH GMO's? They are masquerading as food. A microgram of plutonium is sufficient to cause cancer and it may occur in 30 years or much sooner but it is statistically certain that anyone ingesting a microgram of plutonium will get cancer.
So how do you know which GMO's are bad using the same time frame? If they are, how do you get them out of the food supply after 30 years?
Pandora's box was one way.
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CI9TK
All the food you eat is genetically modified. I don't know how much clearer I can be about that.
Plutonium represents a nuclear danger to life. We are talking about chemical alterations, not nuclear ones. These are two fundamentally different things.
GMOs don't even have inorganic metals in them. They are completely organic. They have to be.
As far as I'm concerned, if they require less land, water and toxic pesticides, we should use them. It's just a no-brainer.
CBlargh 2 months ago
@CBlargh You mock organic, quote Monsanto, refuse to view evidence I offer. Got just 18 seconds? watch?v=qsIWaUZowE0
It is not “All foods”, for example: Nuts. Seed or breed selection IS NOT the same as a GMO.
Genetic Modification encodes deliberate changes to DNA that may otherwise never occur (for good reason), then dispenses it on a massive scale. Chemistry is just the catalyst. Traditional chemistry may mutate genes - smaller scale but a concern.
Suicide genes may not stop propagation.
CI9TK 2 months ago
@CI9TK
What do you mean I mock organic? Organic what? When did I quote Monsanto, and more to the point, why was what I said incorrect?
A selected organism is precisely the same thing as a GMO. Give it enough time, and you could produce every GMO possible with selective breeding.
No nut you eat existed in the same form before humans began our tampering.
Suicide genes may not stop propagation, true... which is why we need more federal research funding and less anti-science hysteria.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh I thought at first that you may have worked at a company like Monsanto (lab tech or receptionist, etc.) and that was why you were defending them.
I have no interest in entertaining a debate with you if you insist "No nut you eat existed in the same form before humans began our tampering."
I hope that anyone else reading this will check the information I posted.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
All you'd need do is google "selective breeding of nuts" and you'd find a heap ton of information about why you are wrong, including an entire book by Luther Burbank on the subject.
NOTHING we eat existed in nature before we began tampering with it... unless you're eating wild venison or something, and even that has been altered by our presence.
The USDA organic definition excludes organic GMOs, which I think weakens the standard. It's a false label and anti-science nonsense.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@CBlargh "Organic GMO". What a ridiculous statement.
Brazil nuts are gathered.
You keep insisting on blending selective breeding and other farming practices with GMO's - and that is without bothering to watch anything about GMO's.
CI9TK 1 month ago
@CI9TK
You think a genetically modified ORGANISM isn't ORGANIC? o_O
Let me help you out here: Snake venom is organic, but if you leave it out in the sun long enough, it's perfectly harmless. INorganic substances like lead, mercury and aluminum NEVER lose their harmful properties, no matter how long you leave them in the sun.
The arbitrary exclusion of lab-modified organisms from the organic definition means crops which thrive without inorganic pesticide can't benefit from the label.
CBlargh 1 month ago
@armandohernandez199 The most effective way save this beast seal is start raisin the munk seal for food. We are never running out of cows or chickens the Chinese have plenty of cats and dogs.
AthenasConquest 2 months ago
@AthenasConquest
Well, that's very true, Athena! If humans were to raise these animals for food, they probably would not be endangered.
The problem with raising seals for food is that they need a huge amount of water and a ton of seafood to survive. You can't just throw them into pastures like you can with cows.
I'm also going to guess their meat is fatty and salty. You might have a hard sell with taste.
CBlargh 2 months ago
@CBlargh Conservative pro business policy's work every time conservative policy's are applied
AthenasConquest 2 months ago
@AthenasConquest
Ah, yes... If only Reagan's seal ranch bill had passed in 1982, we wouldn't be in this awful predicament.
CBlargh 2 months ago
@armandohernandez199
I don't think people would have to miss out on the beach to keep the Hawaiian Monk Seal from going extinct, there would just have to be a certain number of coves off-limits to humans.
I think most people would be fine travelling a little further to lay on the sand in order to preserve this species for future generations, don't you?
CBlargh 2 months ago