Here's the problem . . . we evolved WITH our food. Despite the hysteria (or hypochondria) the real number of kids with significant food allergies is less than 5%. Which makes sense considering it would really sux if Mother Nature/God made a planet where we couldn't eat anything . . . except that GD apple!
So what happens when you start tinkering with the antigenic makeup of our food? We have no friggin' idea! As an optimistic scientist I certainly believe it's possible to make our food better. As a realist scientist I certainly believe it's likely we will harm our food supply.
As for the other two elements, your analysis is like saying global warming is already a problem so why worry about making it worse.
Interesting enough but everything you mentioned can be accomplished by a variety of mechanisms. The truth is that most modifications (farming practices, food transport, subsidy programs) would not benefit Big Agribusiness. In fact, they would typically favor small farms and in some respects developing countries.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,809
- 8,400
- 136
what i take exception to the most about gmf's is that at one time the driving force behind the research was humanitarian. at present, profit is without a doubt priority $$#1.
when profit became the main motivating factor for producing gmf's a whole different culture took over the development of the industry. practices that made keeping gmf produced genomes from contaminating the natural food supply simply became a hinderance toward quicker profits. patience and secure scientific methodology toward producing non-threatening gmf's became major roadblocks that were side-stepped by politics rather than resoving those issues with good science.
the quest for higher yields took on a completely different meaning where yields in investment portfolios became more important than the yield out in the field.
imho, whenever profit becomes the over-ridiing factor in making decisions about whether or not a certain gmf is safe for human consumption and safe for the environment, you have to get mighty skeptical and wary.
the pharmaceutical trade is a perfect example. look at what the pressure did to get a product out as quickly as possible so as to keep development costs down and profits up: the deaths and crippling of thousands of people over the years. the pharma's even extrapolate and lobby over how many deaths are acceptable for a product they're attempting to rush to market.
the gmf industry isn't any different.
edit - spl
when profit became the main motivating factor for producing gmf's a whole different culture took over the development of the industry. practices that made keeping gmf produced genomes from contaminating the natural food supply simply became a hinderance toward quicker profits. patience and secure scientific methodology toward producing non-threatening gmf's became major roadblocks that were side-stepped by politics rather than resoving those issues with good science.
the quest for higher yields took on a completely different meaning where yields in investment portfolios became more important than the yield out in the field.
imho, whenever profit becomes the over-ridiing factor in making decisions about whether or not a certain gmf is safe for human consumption and safe for the environment, you have to get mighty skeptical and wary.
the pharmaceutical trade is a perfect example. look at what the pressure did to get a product out as quickly as possible so as to keep development costs down and profits up: the deaths and crippling of thousands of people over the years. the pharma's even extrapolate and lobby over how many deaths are acceptable for a product they're attempting to rush to market.
the gmf industry isn't any different.
edit - spl
Not hysteria, but there are real concerns about food allergies.
How will anyone with them know which foods they will have to avoid in the future if we screw them all up?
As someone who has had anaphylaxis, it is a scary prospect.
How will anyone with them know which foods they will have to avoid in the future if we screw them all up?
As someone who has had anaphylaxis, it is a scary prospect.
Many are made to withstand more pesticides, so that they can spray them even more. It's not good for our health, and it also can damage the healthy bacteria in the soil/environment that help make the food more nutritious. Weeds and bugs adapt, so the end result is more carcinogens in your food. yay.
Some, such as strawberries, are genetically modified to appear more fresh, when they are in fact beginning to spoil. I've really noticed the quality of strawberries degrading since even the early 1990s. It's very rare to come across a sweet, delicious batch in a supermarket even in season. They're all moldy and sour now. Only farmer's markets or home grown can deliver.
Rarely, but it has occured, genetically modified plants, which are often designed to grow faster and with more resistance, can reproduce with closely related weeds, making them even more difficult to control.
Digestion is an extremely complicated process that we shouldn't fvck with until we understand completely. The differences in genetics may impact your bacterial flora, which is absolutely critical for good health. We've seen what synthetic foods have done in the past: trans fats, olean, other "diet" ingredients. The differences in the chemical bonds between trans fats and saturated fats (like palm oil) are small, but make all the difference in health.
Some, such as strawberries, are genetically modified to appear more fresh, when they are in fact beginning to spoil. I've really noticed the quality of strawberries degrading since even the early 1990s. It's very rare to come across a sweet, delicious batch in a supermarket even in season. They're all moldy and sour now. Only farmer's markets or home grown can deliver.
Rarely, but it has occured, genetically modified plants, which are often designed to grow faster and with more resistance, can reproduce with closely related weeds, making them even more difficult to control.
Digestion is an extremely complicated process that we shouldn't fvck with until we understand completely. The differences in genetics may impact your bacterial flora, which is absolutely critical for good health. We've seen what synthetic foods have done in the past: trans fats, olean, other "diet" ingredients. The differences in the chemical bonds between trans fats and saturated fats (like palm oil) are small, but make all the difference in health.
And I don't think people are arguing against the concept of genetically modified foods. Rather, the current practice. It's also a similar problem with prescription drugs, and the unwarranted promotion of soy as a "health" food.
OKay, so what's this argument about crop yield. Is there any evidence that crop yield is higher in the long run? And if we're concerned about people starving in the world, shouldn't we grant the power to the government to sieze property and open more farms to feed people in the rest of the world? To ration the amount of food that citizens can eat?
Forgive me for my lack of blind faith in the government and GM companies. Why should I trust them? Look at the health of people today. Wow, the promotion of prescription drugs, the grain happy food pyramid (which has gotten better), Tuskegee, antibiotics, soy, etc has really done it's job well.
Forgive me for my lack of blind faith in the government and GM companies. Why should I trust them? Look at the health of people today. Wow, the promotion of prescription drugs, the grain happy food pyramid (which has gotten better), Tuskegee, antibiotics, soy, etc has really done it's job well.
While I'm not trying to minimize the legitimate concerns of people with a real hypersensitivity to certain food antigens, the actual percentage of people that are allergic to a particular native food is small . . . less than 5%.
Regardless, I think we are in agreement that we should tread carefully.
Someone in 18th century Europe:
Here's a question: by what mechanism could uranium ore have long term effects on us that are different from the long term effects of normal iron ore?
To summarize your argument: we don't know how it could harm us, therefore it cannot harm us!
Well to numner one: While I am no expert, but a wrongly folded Protein could kill you eventually - I believe this is how BSE works
Afaik GMF can be a huge problem regarding allergies...
But the biggest Problem is probably Number 2: It is already known how imported species (plants, animals, deseases) wrecked havoc on the local environment. Now GMF have the potential to be far more devastating.
Anyway GMF may or may not pose dangers - the problem is we dont know and once we know it might be too late, because unlike previous dangers were the effect ususally can be seen quite immediately with GMF it could be very long term dangers that are not forseeable atm.
I guess we'll see...
That's no more stupid than the summary of your argument: "there are things we don't know about it, so let's not use it, or better yet, ban it"
Average lifespan in the U.S. has increased from 47 years to 70 years from 1900 to 2000.
/argument
OK, a portion of your gene code that you pass on to your progeny, is from viruses.
The viruses infected your ancesters cells and some how made you a carrier for virus genes. Gene transfer happens in nature by chance and with technology can happen by 10,000X.
But anyway, do you want corporations working in this with their profit first agenda?
Wow. Congratulations on making my "ignorant statement of the day".
The "profit-first" agenda is what makes the world go round. Self-interest is the main driving force for most people most of the time. So please go choke on something, before you ruin the world.
Profit first and above all else? What a DOG-EAT-DOG, Fascist little word do you imagine this to be.
What ethical limbo DO you live in?
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,785
- 6,345
- 126
This particular issue seems to strike a nerve with Meuge. In another thread on GMF he suggested I was Anti-Science because of my objections.
You are absolutely correct about Profits leading to unforeseen dangers. It's not like it has never happened before. Of course questioning the Profit Motive at any degree makes you a Commie!
While discoveries often come out of true selflessness and dedication, the implementation of said discoveries ALWAYS requires a profit mentality. In short - nothing that doesn't bring a profit can ever be widely adopted. Self-interest drives the world forward, despite all of its shortcomings.
I am a realist, you're deluded... end of story.
P.S. The fascist comments gets you the Godwin's law note. You lose.
And you still don't see the communist tinge in your words after reading your last sentence?Originally posted by: sandorski
This particular issue seems to strike a nerve with Meuge. In another thread on GMF he suggested I was Anti-Science because of my objections.
You are absolutely correct about Profits leading to unforeseen dangers.
Profits don't lead to unforseen dangers any more than their absence. Progress leads to unforseen dangers... and progress is driven by profit. With every subsequent step, our progress speeds up, and the dangers increase. The only way to decrease the danger is to cease our progress. Do me a favor - before continuing this silly course of debate, read Isaac Asimov's fairly short book called "End of Eternity". I promise you'll learn something.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,785
- 6,345
- 126
Originally posted by: Meuge
And you still don't see the communist tinge in your words after reading your last sentence?Originally posted by: sandorski
This particular issue seems to strike a nerve with Meuge. In another thread on GMF he suggested I was Anti-Science because of my objections.
You are absolutely correct about Profits leading to unforeseen dangers.
Profits don't lead to unforseen dangers any more than their absence. Progress leads to unforseen dangers... and progress is driven by profit. With every subsequent step, our progress speeds up, and the dangers increase. The only way to decrease the danger is to cease our progress. Do me a favor - before continuing this silly course of debate, read Isaac Asimov's fairly short book called "End of Eternity". I promise you'll learn something.
"Communist tinge"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter