-
We welcome content that is not political, divisive, or offensive. If we feel your content leans this way or has the potential to, it may be removed at any time. A hot pepper forum is not the place for such content. Thank you for respecting the community!
Monsanto + Bayer = marriage made in hell
- Thread starter Scovie
- Start date
yea glyphosate itself just isnt that carcinogenic.
its alot less carcinogenic that stuff we use and eat every day coffe being just one example. but there are some carcinogenic adjuvants that they used to add to glyphosate preparation for surfactant "sticking" and filming etc.
its alot less carcinogenic that stuff we use and eat every day coffe being just one example. but there are some carcinogenic adjuvants that they used to add to glyphosate preparation for surfactant "sticking" and filming etc.
lol ok... but do you at least recognize that you sound every bit as ignorant and 'sheep'like as you are imply i am?Scoville DeVille said:
Monsanto business model is bad and we need to preserve genetic diversity and heirlooms but 'clicktivism' is not the solution:
https://off-guardian.org/2015/07/18/avaaz-clicktivist-heroes-or-soros-wolf-in-woolly-disguise/
Datil
https://off-guardian.org/2015/07/18/avaaz-clicktivist-heroes-or-soros-wolf-in-woolly-disguise/
Datil
how is their buisness model "bad", when they are being bought for 66 BILLION...lol its one thing to say they are morally bad( not true), but their buisness model is bad? lol.
and how do GMOS effect genetic diversity compared to traditional hybrid cultivars?
and how do GMOS effect genetic diversity compared to traditional hybrid cultivars?
queequeg152 said:
Profiting from terminator genes might be 'good' in a capitalistic sense but it is not 'good' for our environment.
GMO's affect on our genetic diversity vs traditional hybrid cultivars has not been extensively proven, but I ask you megamind genius qq - do you think the addition of insect/animal DNA to our plant hybrids is a good idea?
I'd ask further why you think companies who's work on hybridization and plant genomes would be actively funding lobbyists who are advocating AGAINST mandatory labeling of GMO crops?
Surely you the independent thinker would rather have the information spelled out on each label so as to make your own choices?
no terminator genes were ever publicly available to any farmer. i dont think they were even field trialed. the terminator genes thing was monsanto picking up on a schools study and trying to develop it further, but it went nowhere.SmokenFire said:
lots of plants produce sterile seeds... this is nothing new, and the terminator gene was supposed to be an extension of that, but again, never left a lab bench so they never ever "profited" from it.
GMO trait corn varieties are exactly the same as most any traditional hybrid corn cultivar EXCEPT for the traits inserted into the corns genomes. in the case of BT cotton and corn these traits encode for the production of the very same protienes that organic farmers spray by the ton only in the form of a bacterial endospore.
this trait is form a bacteria, not an insect or animal... viruses transfer genetic matierial from bacteria to plants all the time, and its completely random... not targeted traites studied for years and years.
lobbyist dont want foods manditorily labeled as GMO because they would sell less, alot less. why? because the anti GMO side has lied and lied and lied for years regarding GMO traits and plants... at the VERY LEAST they have managed to instill a controversy, and most people without the knowledge would rather avoid the controversy all together.
as an "independent"(id say rational...) thinker, NO i would absolutly not want that shit labeled... labels are for ACTUAL SHIT... allergens, nutritional content etc... NOT IDEOLOGICAL BULLSHIT.
to date, all federally mandated labeling is enforced as a means to ensure consumer protection... all the way down to "may contain penuts", for the folks ultra sensitive to penut protienes.
so now you want to add a label for food produced from plants containing GMO traits? a process that has been shown to be 100% safe for around 3 decades now? what do you think that tells the consumer?
"hmmm... everything else on this label is for my safety...so what is this about GMO's?"... lol its all just so moronic.
haha... a GMO trait isnt even an ingrediant like, "red dye no.54" or what ever the fuck... most of the food stuffs are processed to such an extent, that you are not actually eating any of the plants GMO protienes anyway... all that corn syrup? that shit is extracted chemically with solvent and steam, then concentrated in a vacuum. do why does a can of coke need a manditory GMO label?
Excellent response qq, and in much more detail that explains a lot of it to me as a casual or passing interest. Thanks for the well worded response. 
I still believe I have a right to know if a programmed virus or animal/insect gene was used to mutate/hybridize any foodstuffs I am able to get. Hopefully the label also sends me to a good source of further knowledge about the hows and whys of certain selection/additions to plants is good for said crop along with some details about how it's going to affect the large amounts of existing genetics in the wild.
I still believe I have a right to know if a programmed virus or animal/insect gene was used to mutate/hybridize any foodstuffs I am able to get. Hopefully the label also sends me to a good source of further knowledge about the hows and whys of certain selection/additions to plants is good for said crop along with some details about how it's going to affect the large amounts of existing genetics in the wild.
lol you know whats hilarious about the Terminator gene thing? it was supposed to placate folks who feared the spread of these traits into the wild...the exact thing anti-gmo folks lament.
there has actually been some interest in introducing GMO trait trees with these genes into actual wild forests... the reasoning is that they could plant these trees alongside wild trees with the traits from a proper root stock essentially built into the plan that would prevent infestation and death from soil microbes and shit like that. they want to put in a terminator gene to control the spread of these genes beyond where they are needed.
unlike field crops... giving a wild tree the traits it needs to actually survive a natural selective pressure WOULD result in those genes spreading rapidly via natural selection... plus tree pollen is small and travels for miles and miles unlike corn pollen which is like the size of a tic-tack and- despite insane volumes- does not get more than a mile or two from a field.
there is also alot of interest in GMO tree plantations with traits selected for super fast growth, or certain types of growth... less branchy lower down for lumber growth... again these plantation cultivars would need the terminator trait to prevent from spreading into the wild as well because again... when a trait actually allows a wild plant to fight off natural pressures, its traits WILL spread out.
contrast this with fucking field crops lol... how long do you think a field crop would last in actual wild conditions? without fertilizer and neat little furrows and irrigation? the answer is not long. more over these plants are hybrids like any commercial corn cultivar... so the likely hood of any off spring being viable in the first place is less likely.
sure i guess in a million years a virus could randomly insert just the BT gene trait into some other wild cultivar, without all the downsides of a field crop.... and it might gain some advantage, but this is wildly unlikely considering how limited BT toxin is.
there has actually been some interest in introducing GMO trait trees with these genes into actual wild forests... the reasoning is that they could plant these trees alongside wild trees with the traits from a proper root stock essentially built into the plan that would prevent infestation and death from soil microbes and shit like that. they want to put in a terminator gene to control the spread of these genes beyond where they are needed.
unlike field crops... giving a wild tree the traits it needs to actually survive a natural selective pressure WOULD result in those genes spreading rapidly via natural selection... plus tree pollen is small and travels for miles and miles unlike corn pollen which is like the size of a tic-tack and- despite insane volumes- does not get more than a mile or two from a field.
there is also alot of interest in GMO tree plantations with traits selected for super fast growth, or certain types of growth... less branchy lower down for lumber growth... again these plantation cultivars would need the terminator trait to prevent from spreading into the wild as well because again... when a trait actually allows a wild plant to fight off natural pressures, its traits WILL spread out.
contrast this with fucking field crops lol... how long do you think a field crop would last in actual wild conditions? without fertilizer and neat little furrows and irrigation? the answer is not long. more over these plants are hybrids like any commercial corn cultivar... so the likely hood of any off spring being viable in the first place is less likely.
sure i guess in a million years a virus could randomly insert just the BT gene trait into some other wild cultivar, without all the downsides of a field crop.... and it might gain some advantage, but this is wildly unlikely considering how limited BT toxin is.
dude you do have that right, but its not ethical/moral to mandate it federally.SmokenFire said:Excellent response qq, and in much more detail that explains a lot of it to me as a casual or passing interest. Thanks for the well worded response.
I still believe I have a right to know if a programmed virus or animal/insect gene was used to mutate/hybridize any foodstuffs I am able to get. Hopefully the label also sends me to a good source of further knowledge about the hows and whys of certain selection/additions to plants is good for said crop along with some details about how it's going to affect the large amounts of existing genetics in the wild.
anti- gmo is ideological thing that is catered to by the free market like ANYTHING else. if you want to be 100% sure you are not getting GMO stuff, you should just buy the stuff that is VOLUNTARILY labeled as gmo free, or USDA organic... its just that simple.
before this thread dies... let me just say that i think its VERY important to oppose these irrational/ignorant views of biotech because these views have spread WAY beyond the fringe... and this irrationality is actually effecting progress on a distinct and measurable scale.Scoville DeVille said:
did you know that we actually have the means to produce acceptable tasting penuts that lack the half dozen or so protienes responsible for most of the allergic reaction? or that we have the means to produce GM plantation trees that produce denser and stronger wood faster? or produce pigs that shit out less methane?
why do you think these are not pursued? because nobody wants to buy them or be associated with them due to the anti gmo hysteria... dude the national association of penut growers OUTRIGHT refused to endorse or fund the creation of any of these reduced allergen cultivars because they did not want to be associated with GM in the same way that corn and soy has been.
its all so fucking dumb and wasteful, and we are going to NEED this technology very soon... right now we are in this pious... finicky stage where are are able to produce all the food and shit we need status quo cheaply. but what happens when we decide that we need to get serious about CO2?
dont you think it would be nice to be able to grow a plantation tree with the strength of an Alaskan slow growth pine tree, but at the speed of something like a plantation SYP?
we are going to be starting on the back foot when we actually need this shit to keep society running. like it or not, intensive cultivation is here to stay... and like all intensive cultivation methods(including organic production), you need huge inputs of labor and tools to control disease... GM traits are just another very good tool in the box, and refusing to use this tool amounts to tremendous wasted potential.
lol like heirloom produce? monsanto does not produce any GMO vegetable seed last i checked. they own DeRuiters, but they are just plant breeders.
its good to know just how immune to facts you guys are though.
its good to know just how immune to facts you guys are though.
