[Bobboau]

the thing I think they should do is make them geneticly incompatable with the exsisting ancetral plants and have a variation of the terminator gene that you can turn off on a per generation via some chemical cueso the only thing you'd have to do diferent from normal crops is add a small amount os some relitivly cheap chemical mesanger to your fertaliser or just by it'self and the seeds will germinate on there own, but only in soil with the chemical marker. and as said they would be incompatable with wild varieties

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
Random chance, thats all.

And that's why people who don't want to let the starving masses in Africa eat need to shut the f**k up. It's only random chance that you were born in a country that had enough food. It pisses me off when people say "we can't let the third world grow GM food, we don't know the health effects". F**k anyone who says that! We know all to to well the health effects of not having any food. You die! . Compared to that the risk of developing some unknown side-effect further down the line is minimal.

Originally posted by Rictor
You can't possibly be serious. Thats like saying rapists are free to go about their jolly business, so long as they stay out of my house.

I can't believe you even said that. Sort of pisses on your whole argument on other threads where you've tried to claim that a life in another country is as valuable as a life here.

You're the one who wants people in Africa to die because of lack of food. Not me.  Your position is basically like saying this man might get cancer in 30 years so I'm going to send him to the gas chambers now.  

I really hope you mearly misread my sentence or didn't understand the point I was making cause while I may not agree with your stance on many subjects I at least respected your commitment to the value of human life. If you really feel this way you can join ****, Clinton and all the other bastards who think a principal that causes them no hardship is more important than a brown human life elsewhere on the planet.

Originally posted by Flipside
Actually there seems to be a problem with the coding of the Terminator Gene anyway, while it prevents the seeds from germinating, it doesn't prevent certain GM traits getting into surrounding flora

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/argentina100603.cfm

http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=2530

Take a damn good look at your sources Flip. I wouldn't trust those lying bastards if they told me the world was round.

Originally posted by Bobboau
the thing I think they should do is make them geneticly incompatable with the exsisting ancetral plants

That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm not certain how many genes you'd have to change to cause speciation but I can't imagine it being that many.

[Flipside]

Kara, I know those sites are biased, I could find sites that say the exact opposite as well, but the fact that the weeds are being mutated by the GM crops is accepted universally, though some people blame it on the actions of the farmers by using too much Herbicide/Fertiliser etc, or trying to make cuttings of the crops in order to save money, which wouldn't surprise me.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Flipside
Kara, I know those sites are biased, I could find sites that say the exact opposite as well, but the fact that the weeds are being mutated by the GM crops is accepted universally, though some people blame it on the actions of the farmers by using too much Herbicide/Fertiliser etc, or trying to make cuttings of the crops in order to save money, which wouldn't surprise me.

Maybe. I hadn't heard of it and a quick search of the New Scientist website failed to find the article they mentioned on it either so I'll reserve judgement on that until I hear about it in a proper scientific source.

[Flipside]

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=23290100

That is the New Scientist report that states that there are concerns that such a crossover is possible.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/18/wgm18.xml

That is a statement refuting the claim that the weed problems are being caused by GM crops.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0%2C2763%2C1192869%2C00.html

And that is a report in the Guardian that sits about halfway between.

Jury's still out on this one I think

[karajorma]

I read all three. Not a single one had any scientific proof of these superweeds existance. The new Scientist article mearly pointed at another article published the week before (which doesn't appear to be on the site) which says that they may exist.

The other two mention that soya itself may become a problem by choking out other plants but I'm yet to see any proof of cross-pollenation with any other species to result in the superweeds that the organic side of the arguement complain about.

And considering that organic farming definately is bad for the enviroment I think it's rather rich of them to sit on their high horses and complain about GM crops when their own farming methods poison fishes and can result in an increased cancer risk to anyone stupid enough to pay extra for the privilege.

[mikhael]

Organic farming is bad for the environment?

By strict definition, agricultural methods used throughout history--up until the 1900s--are "organic".

So, um, in what way is organic farming bad for the environment?

[aldo_14]

edit - actually, nevermind.  Can;t be arsed justnow.

[Flipside]

I didn't see much evidence to prove that overfarming was causing the problem either, that usually just drains the soil entirely and makes sure practically nothing can grow in it, I don't recall over-farming ever causing a bout of weeds before.

The fact of the matter is that something is causing the over-abundance of weeds in Argentinian crops and these weeds are taking more herbicide to die than they used to. It may be over-herbiciding, it may be genetic alteration in the weeds, as I said, the Jury is still out, but concerns HAVE been raised regarding this, once again, as I said earlier, I DO believe the GM crops are the way to go, but I just think they should be grown in isolation. The reason for that is to stop the kind of question that will undoubtedly arrive in situations such as this, as this situation has proved, no-ones quite sure, and it will probably be several years until we are. I don't want to see mass 'Frankenfoods' panics everytime something wierd happens near a GM crop, so by removing production and isolating it completely, it means that no-one can complain

[Bobboau]

insects have been developing an imuneity to insectacides for years...
must be all them geneticly altered insects we've unleashd into the environment. 50 years ago. yeah.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael
Organic farming is bad for the environment?

By strict definition, agricultural methods used throughout history--up until the 1900s--are "organic".

So, um, in what way is organic farming bad for the environment?

Several ways. Organic farming in the we don't use any pesticides at all way might be fine. But that's not what they are doing. It's mearly a common fantasy held by the public at large.

Organic farning as term means these days is any farming practice where the pesticides and herbicides used derive from a natural source. That means that dumping huge quantities of sulphur on your land is considered organic.  Lots of other "natural" chemicals are allowed including copper and even cobalt sulphates.

 Organic farmers use pyrethrum derived from natural sources as an insecticide. Never mind that synthetic pyrethroids can have the same effect in much lower concentrations (never mind also that pyrethrum itself has been proved to cause cancer in lab animals either!)

Worse since these fools are using more of these chemicals than the conventional farmers they get more run-off into streams and rivers. The result is damage to the fish populations there.

Even just using manure is dangerous. Again it runs off the fields much more easily than synthetic fertilisers. Once it hits the rivers it has it's desired effect on algae and river plants, They then grow much more than they would otherwise, choking up rivers.

Even if you avoid any of these problems you still face on basic insurmountable problem. Organic farming will always result in lower yields than conventional or GM farming. So if you want to get rid of commercial farming and replace it with organic where are you going to get the land from to do it? Yep. A large chunk of all that lovely countryside is going to have to go.

In short organic farming is actually worse for the enviroment in almost every way. It uses more chemicals than conventional farming. It uses chemicals just as toxic if not more toxic and it uses more land.

[Bobboau]

"(never mind also that pyrethrum itself has been proved to cause cancer in lab animals either!)"
hey don't forget that these are the people who say
"testing on animals proves nothing"

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
"(never mind also that pyrethrum itself has been proved to cause cancer in lab animals either!)"
hey don't forget that these are the people who say
"testing on animals proves nothing"

I know The stupidity of these people amazes me. Not one of them ever pauses to think that even if it doesn't scale up to humans (Which is absolute crap cause it does) giving mice cancer with pyrethrum in the lab pretty much means that doormice in those fields will get it too.  

Won't someone think of the doormice?

[StratComm]

"And remember guys, the Grand Canyon was carved in 40 days!!!!!1111oneoneone"

Idiots.  Now there are issues with GM crops that are legitimate, but 99% of the stuff that makes the news doesn't come close.  Cross pollonating with other crops (of the same species) to produce strains with unknown and unpredictable traits, yes, that's a concern.  Cross-pollonating with a weed so far genetically removed from any form of commercially exploitable crop in a way that even creates a viable offspring?  Not so likely.  PETA, the orgo food camp, all of them have their heads in the sensationalistic, not the realistic.

[Bobboau]

and the whole reason were on the subject of GM foos is to show how leftist ideology is just as capable of bringing harm and controleing people as conservitive ideology, when used as a replacement for thinking. anyone who wants to walk in the streets mindlessly chanting 'frankinfood', 'animal liberation', and 'no blood for oil' is as much a fucking moron as the people who mindlessly chant 'abortion is murder', 'keep God in school' and 'just war'

the animal liberation 'movement' is probly an even better example of this.

[StratComm]

I tend to lump them all into one category of extremists.  Makes it much easier to deal with on the whole, since they're all just talking out of their collective rear ends.

[Flipside]

Agreed, extremeism in any form is bad. It's not a question of getting rid of GM foods altogether, it's just a question of making bloody sure we know what we are doing.

From what I have read, both on the above pages, and elsewhere, there are very few definite ways of telling whether GM materials get in the finished products of GM foods, that Rats have suffered intestinal damage from eating GM Potatoes, though, admittedly, a diet of purely potatos would probably give me intestinal damage too.

In other words, I read all these stories, some of them I believe, some of them I don't, but I am not beyond 'all reasonable doubt' about GM Foods yet. We can't ignore the future, but we can't always go blindly stumbling into it either.

[Bobboau]

and the big thing with GM food is that every one is diferent, proveing one variety is dangurus or something has no effect on any other (unless there derived from or releted to the bad one). it's like saying all plants are bad becase poison ivy can give you a bad rash .

[Rictor]

I once fell in a **** of poison ivy when I was like 7. Literally, a whole damn ****. Luckily, it was near the beach so I just went into the water to soothe the pain/itching.

Regarding GM foods, I am certainly not a fanatic or extremist when it comes to accepting them if they are indeed useful. I don't know enough to pass judgement (no one here does I expect), but it they are useful then sure - bring 'em on. However, I have a general opinion that when you try to mess with nature's doing, you only end up screwing yourself in the end. We are as of yet too stupid and technologically primitive to forsee all sideeffects of new technology. If you try to improve upon nature, generally you get al sorts of terrible and unpredictable sideffects. But if "they" managed to prove GM foods have more benefits than drawbacks, I'm for it.

However, food is left to rot all the time. Many, many farmers throw away food constantly, becuase it more profitable to do that than to ship it somewhere. And not just GM foods, this happens to all produce. Blaming this problem on the anti-GM crowd is absurd.

I vaguely remember India having some breakthroughs or some such in agriculture, I'll try to dig someone up.

edit: that says b.u.s.h. not f**k, obviously.

[Bobboau]

ok were talking about a specific incedent, there was food shiped to africa, and it was turned down. becase 'the anti-GM crowd' told them lies, and many people died horably becase of it.
talking about generalitys of agraculture is irrelevent becase, the food left to rot usualy isn't sent half way around the world with the intention of saveing lives only to be refused once there.

saying that were too stupid to do it sounds a lot like the "it's unnatural" argument used by the conservitive morons to put down a good idea that there ideology tells them is somehow wrong. think about what that would sound like if you replaced all occurances of the word 'nature' with the word 'God'