Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire To all those who have a problem with GMO crops, a question.

Sometimes the level of ignorance in these posts is just staggering.

Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.

In the plant breeding that produces F1 hybrids that are not sterile, the offspring that are not sterile usually will not reproduce their own characteristics, nor those of their parents.

Assuming that a GMO with genes spliced into say a plant species from a mamalian species, or from a wholly unrelated plant species is a safe because it doesn't kill one of a very limited number of animal species is equally ignorant.

Leaving aside the possibility of a GMO "contaminating" the genes of other variants of the same species and thereby creating a "Monsantoized" version of beans or corn preventing the farmer from legally saving his own seed without paying a royalty to Monsanto for their genes which against his will contaminated his crop, you still have the problem of that cross contamination of another species which can perhaps overwhelm and wipe out a given species. Anyone who eats wild rice knows that domesticated wild rice is like eating gravel that has little to no flavor compared to real wild rice. That's just one species capable of being destroyed to our great loss.

Synthetic analogs of medications can be and very often are considerably more dangerous than their "organic" counterparts. Synthetic analogs are rarely tested across a broad enough sample of individuals of ANY species they are tested on to show how dangerous they can be to specific individuals and as a result you see some being completely withdrawn from commerce and some being severely restricted in their potential application. This is a common occurrence.

That we do stupid things in the pursuit of commerce does not mean it's a good idea to do more of it, or to treat it casually. It's all well and good to run your mouth about how this or that has been done before, but when you or your loved one is the victim of say a cox-2 inhibitor induced heart attack and is killed or incapacitated as a result, the fun goes out of it.

Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.

Sometimes the level of ignorance in these posts is just staggering.

Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.

In the plant breeding that produces F1 hybrids that are not sterile, the offspring that are not sterile usually will not reproduce their own characteristics, nor those of their parents.

Assuming that a GMO with genes spliced into say a plant species from a mamalian species, or from a wholly unrelated plant species is a safe because it doesn't kill one of a very limited number of animal species is equally ignorant.

Leaving aside the possibility of a GMO "contaminating" the genes of other variants of the same species and thereby creating a "Monsantoized" version of beans or corn preventing the farmer from legally saving his own seed without paying a royalty to Monsanto for their genes which against his will contaminated his crop, you still have the problem of that cross contamination of another species which can perhaps overwhelm and wipe out a given species. Anyone who eats wild rice knows that domesticated wild rice is like eating gravel that has little to no flavor compared to real wild rice. That's just one species capable of being destroyed to our great loss.

Synthetic analogs of medications can be and very often are considerably more dangerous than their "organic" counterparts. Synthetic analogs are rarely tested across a broad enough sample of individuals of ANY species they are tested on to show how dangerous they can be to specific individuals and as a result you see some being completely withdrawn from commerce and some being severely restricted in their potential application. This is a common occurrence.

That we do stupid things in the pursuit of commerce does not mean it's a good idea to do more of it, or to treat it casually. It's all well and good to run your mouth about how this or that has been done before, but when you or your loved one is the victim of say a cox-2 inhibitor induced heart attack and is killed or incapacitated as a result, the fun goes out of it.

Sometimes the level of ignorance in these posts is just staggering.

Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.

In the plant breeding that produces F1 hybrids that are not sterile, the offspring that are not sterile usually will not reproduce their own characteristics, nor those of their parents.

Assuming that a GMO with genes spliced into say a plant species from a mamalian species, or from a wholly unrelated plant species is a safe because it doesn't kill one of a very limited number of animal species is equally ignorant.

Leaving aside the possibility of a GMO "contaminating" the genes of other variants of the same species and thereby creating a "Monsantoized" version of beans or corn preventing the farmer from legally saving his own seed without paying a royalty to Monsanto for their genes which against his will contaminated his crop, you still have the problem of that cross contamination of another species which can perhaps overwhelm and wipe out a given species. Anyone who eats wild rice knows that domesticated wild rice is like eating gravel that has little to no flavor compared to real wild rice. That's just one species capable of being destroyed to our great loss.

Synthetic analogs of medications can be and very often are considerably more dangerous than their "organic" counterparts. Synthetic analogs are rarely tested across a broad enough sample of individuals of ANY species they are tested on to show how dangerous they can be to specific individuals and as a result you see some being completely withdrawn from commerce and some being severely restricted in their potential application. This is a common occurrence.

That we do stupid things in the pursuit of commerce does not mean it's a good idea to do more of it, or to treat it casually. It's all well and good to run your mouth about how this or that has been done before, but when you or your loved one is the victim of say a cox-2 inhibitor induced heart attack and is killed or incapacitated as a result, the fun goes out of it.

I might see the Religion people getting a little worked up but the evolutionist should realize that since everything started with one organism and mutated from there, it is all kinfolk and will eventually mutate into the very thing the scientist are creating. Call it "evolution speeded up" hence no harm. miles

According to the US census bureau, life expectancy 100 years ago was 47.3 years, now it is 77.85 years.

Not sure if you were referring to me as "running my mouth", but the point I am trying to make is that as a whole, modern farming practices and modern medicine allows most of us to live longer, healthier lives. I realize there are negative drawbacks to both, but as a whole we are better for them. Would anybody really want to go back to some of the horrific diseases that modern medicine has largely done away with? Polio, measles, typhoid fever, small pox, malaria, diphtheria, tetanus just to name a few. Not to mention medicine for blood pressure, cholesterol, depression and countless others. And, hand in hand with modern medicine saving hundreds of thousands of lives and extending millions more, we now need to feed all these people.

Quite a world apart from what Monsatan is engaging in.

To quote MILES58, "the level of ignorance is staggering."

Call it "evolution speeded up" hence no harm. miles

You do realize that none of the diseases you mentioned have been done away with other than in very limited populations? You also realize that what that science gives us with one hand it takes away with the other? Consider just one example of a disease "conquered" by science, smallpox. Smallpox is gone. It only exists officially in a couple of specific repositories and then under extreme security. Science without my consent, and certainly without the consent of many scientists has taken samples of a closely related pox virus GMOed it with human interleuken-2 and it quite literally blows through any vaccine. Of all the incredibly dumb experiments to do, testing to see if we could produce a strain of smallpox with the capability of killing several billion humans before we could find a way to slow it down let alone stop or eradicate it again, with a simple and relatively common lab practice when we know full good and well that Russia made truckloads of smallpox virus and we have never accounted for most of it inspires no trust in the community of science for me.

Science is the only thing we have to save us from ourselves. Yet, we have systematically dismantled our public health infrastructure to the point where we turn what we know to be homicidal maniacs loose on the street because we can no longer involuntarily commit them to protect ourselves.

When science gets mixed into economic value, we rarely come up winners.

The perfect example of this mistake is E. coliO157:H7. The bacteria that periodically gets loose and kills/maims a goodly number of people. E. coli comes from one place. [bleep]. It's an intestinal bacteria. It s now OUR job to cook any meat we eat to kill the bacteria resultant from our food producers introducing it into our food. If you don't put [bleep] on the meat in processing you do not have it in the food. It's that simple. We have set up a food chain that not only puts [bleep] in our food, it deliberately concentrates the animals carrying the bacteria so as to maximize the spread of the bacteria from animal to animal while including multiple antibiotics into the animal's gut. It's almost as if we are trying to deliberately produce a more deadly bacteria that is resistant to more and perhaps all antibiotics. Where is responsible science in that proposition?

You do realize that none of the diseases you mentioned have been done away with other than in very limited populations? You also realize that what that science gives us with one hand it takes away with the other? Consider just one example of a disease "conquered" by science, smallpox. Smallpox is gone. It only exists officially in a couple of specific repositories and then under extreme security. Science without my consent, and certainly without the consent of many scientists has taken samples of a closely related pox virus GMOed it with human interleuken-2 and it quite literally blows through any vaccine. Of all the incredibly dumb experiments to do, testing to see if we could produce a strain of smallpox with the capability of killing several billion humans before we could find a way to slow it down let alone stop or eradicate it again, with a simple and relatively common lab practice when we know full good and well that Russia made truckloads of smallpox virus and we have never accounted for most of it inspires no trust in the community of science for me.

Science is the only thing we have to save us from ourselves. Yet, we have systematically dismantled our public health infrastructure to the point where we turn what we know to be homicidal maniacs loose on the street because we can no longer involuntarily commit them to protect ourselves.

When science gets mixed into economic value, we rarely come up winners.

The perfect example of this mistake is E. coliO157:H7. The bacteria that periodically gets loose and kills/maims a goodly number of people. E. coli comes from one place. [bleep]. It's an intestinal bacteria. It s now OUR job to cook any meat we eat to kill the bacteria resultant from our food producers introducing it into our food. If you don't put [bleep] on the meat in processing you do not have it in the food. It's that simple. We have set up a food chain that not only puts [bleep] in our food, it deliberately concentrates the animals carrying the bacteria so as to maximize the spread of the bacteria from animal to animal while including multiple antibiotics into the animal's gut. It's almost as if we are trying to deliberately produce a more deadly bacteria that is resistant to more and perhaps all antibiotics. Where is responsible science in that proposition?

Here is my problem with GMO. I farm. I choose what I grow with great deliberation and care. I spend what little money I have on seed. I expect that seed to germinate and grow the plants I chose and paid for. Say I grow corn. Odds are the corn I grow will not be what I chose but rather it will be a corn contaminated with GMO corn. It may not hurt me but it is NOT what I bought.

GMO corn was recently discovered in taco shells. That corn produced a pesticide not approved for humans. I understand it is nearly imposable to grow corn not contaminated with GMO and now if I want to sell my organic corn for human consumption I have to have it tested to prove it is not GMO.

I can choose to take a medicine or not to take it. The ability to chooses non GMO corn has been all but totally removed.