Good article in todays NY Times. I don't like these genetically
engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
starting to show, big time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...14crop.html?hp

ImStillMags wrote:
>
> Good article in todays NY Times. I don't like these genetically
> engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
> starting to show, big time.

There nothing wrong _per_se_ with genetically
engineered crops. What's wrong with adding a gene
from a bacterium or another plant to a food species?

For example, there's a GMO rice which has been
given the genes needed to produce pro-vitamin A
precursors. But the environmentalist crazies
oppose its use under any and all circumstances,
even though it would save lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

Mark Thorson wrote:
> ImStillMags wrote:
>> Good article in todays NY Times. I don't like these genetically
>> engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
>> starting to show, big time.
>
> There nothing wrong _per_se_ with genetically
> engineered crops. What's wrong with adding a gene
> from a bacterium or another plant to a food species?
>
> For example, there's a GMO rice which has been
> given the genes needed to produce pro-vitamin A
> precursors. But the environmentalist crazies
> oppose its use under any and all circumstances,
> even though it would save lives.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

Even if such manipulation is ultimately benign, it seems very hubristic
of agribusiness to foist it on the public, we wont know for a hundred
years or more if any unforeseen results occur from such genetic
manipulation, and that hopefully will take that long, there is always at
least a chance that the Frankenfoods can become, even accidentally, a
plague, and that quickly.

The agribusiness is trying to centralize and control food production &
distribution and that they have not learned from history what a bad idea
that is i can not accept, history speaks too loudly about the dangers of
food production and distribution being centralized, i can only assume
agribusiness is doing it out of pure greed, they want to patent their
seeds and make a farmer buy new ones every year rather than keeping
aside part of his previous crop for its seed. Pure greed.

I often think that if our advancing technology fatally effects us it
will probly be by accident rather than intent. "Oops"."

And its foolish to think the military isn't experimenting with genetic
manipulation for use as a weapon, in the chemical and biological armory.
And any of those could get loose "accidentally,"
--
JL

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:13:38 -0700, Joseph Littleshoes
> wrote:


>
>Even if such manipulation is ultimately benign, it seems very hubristic
>of agribusiness to foist it on the public, we wont know for a hundred
>years or more if any unforeseen results occur from such genetic
>manipulation, and that hopefully will take that long, there is always at
>least a chance that the Frankenfoods can become, even accidentally, a
>plague, and that quickly.
>
>The agribusiness is trying to centralize and control food production &
>distribution and that they have not learned from history what a bad idea
>that is i can not accept, history speaks too loudly about the dangers of
>food production and distribution being centralized, i can only assume
>agribusiness is doing it out of pure greed, they want to patent their
>seeds and make a farmer buy new ones every year rather than keeping
>aside part of his previous crop for its seed. Pure greed.
>
>I often think that if our advancing technology fatally effects us it
>will probly be by accident rather than intent. "Oops"."
>
>And its foolish to think the military isn't experimenting with genetic
>manipulation for use as a weapon, in the chemical and biological armory.
> And any of those could get loose "accidentally,"

I know we have discussed this before, but I am passionate about GMO.
Agribusiness is not really farming - I know. It's mechanical farming
run by a corporate company using scientists and tons of machinery in
tandem with engineered seed -in this article- RoundUp Ready seed.

Don't think one farmer and his 5 acres, working hard to make each
plant happy.

One has to buy the seed from Monsanto. (I've mentioned the farmer who
got pollen drift from a neighbor's Monsanto crop and was sued by
Monsanto! The seed was growing illegally?) Thousands of acres making
HFCS so that sugar from cane has been driven out of the US market for
most companies--so how has your Campbell's tomato soup tasted this
last decade- bit too sweet?

Universities and their scientists have a lot to gain from Monsanto and
other research dollars. It's hard to turn away the money. But in our
little island County, we fought hard to keep GMO coffee out and not
taint our heritage Kona Coffee . It was a mighty battle but we were
convinced what we had is perfect and did not need to be
"improved"----and proudly became the first US County to say NO to
GMO.

aloha,
Cea

pure kona wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:13:38 -0700, Joseph Littleshoes
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> I often think that if our advancing technology fatally effects us it
>> will probly be by accident rather than intent. "Oops"."
>>
>> And its foolish to think the military isn't experimenting with genetic
>> manipulation for use as a weapon, in the chemical and biological armory.
>> And any of those could get loose "accidentally,"
>
> I know we have discussed this before,

Yes, hello Pure Kona, we had an enjoyable misunderstanding not once and
that but a few months ago
--
JL

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:18:59 -0700, ImStillMags reckoned:

> Good article in todays NY Times. I don't like these genetically
> engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
> starting to show, big time.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...14crop.html?hp

Agree completely. Then there's the not-so-small matter of companies like Monsanto and the
underhanded techniques they use to shut down farmers who don't buy their GMO seed.

What kind of sick mind comes up with 'Terminator' technology?

--
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who haven't got it - George Bernard Shaw

In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Tue,
13 Apr 2010 13:09:06 -0700 the following:

> ImStillMags wrote:
>
> > Good article in todays NY Times. I don't like these genetically
> > engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
> > starting to show, big time.
>
> There nothing wrong _per_se_ with genetically engineered crops. What's
> wrong with adding a gene from a bacterium or another plant to a food
> species?

It artificially breaks the synergy of how the food has naturally evolved
in its own environment. It would be like some alien species coming to
Earth and planting seeds from their planet on ours. People evolved with
their foods, and over time have come to have a synergic relationship with
their foods. Genetic modification disrupts that synergy and health
problems can be the result as our bodies try to figure out what to do with
it. Sometimes the result can be allergic reactions.

I remember reading about cotton grown in India, I believe it was. For
years, they only grew natural cotton. Then some company came in and
wanted to sell their genetically modified cotton seeds to the plantation,
saying their crop yields would increase. The harvesters of the
genetically modified cotton began breaking out in rashes. Imagine what
the result would be of people wearing clothes made from genetically
modified cotton. Now they're finding that the genetically modified cotton
plants are seriously destroying the health of the soil.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuici...ottonIndia.php

Naturally, it's about money. These GMO companies want to patent their
seeds and fix up the system where you must buy more seeds instead of using
the seeds from the previous year's harvest. I've even heard stories of
GMO companies trying to sue people whose farms were infested by
cross-pollenation from genetically-modified crops.

> For example, there's a GMO rice which has been given the genes needed to
> produce pro-vitamin A precursors. But the environmentalist crazies
> oppose its use under any and all circumstances, even though it would
> save lives.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

"Would save lives" is a theory. They won't know until they actually
spread it around. It may save lives, or it may cause more people to live
longer with nasty health effects.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, Joseph Littleshoes > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:13:38 -0700 the following:

> And its foolish to think the military isn't experimenting with genetic
> manipulation for use as a weapon, in the chemical and biological armory.
> And any of those could get loose "accidentally,"

War and pestilence. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, Je+AN8-us > posted on 14 Apr 2010
08:30:42 +-0200 the following:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:18:59 -0700, ImStillMags reckoned:
>
> > Good article in todays NY Times. I don't like these genetically
> > engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
> > starting to show, big time.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...14crop.html?hp
>
> Agree completely. Then there's the not-so-small matter of companies
> like Monsanto and the underhanded techniques they use to shut down
> farmers who don't buy their GMO seed.
>
> What kind of sick mind comes up with 'Terminator' technology?

People who want (a) money, and (b) the means to control the food supply.
Withhold food, then tell people what to do, and if they don't do it,
starve them until they die.

Once these seed companies have sucked up all the natural seed companies,
and have monopolized the seed market, controlling the price of food and
the access to it becomes easy. Just like they only make so many vaccines,
or only make so much oil available, or only make so much gas available,
all so they can control the price of it, that's what'll continue happening
with food. They already do that by paying farmers not to grow certain
crops, just so the price of that food item will not drop. And then just
let people in other parts of the world starve and die. It's just natural,
right? Atheists who are worried about overpopulation love to tout the
idea that letting people starve and die is just the natural way to do
things, and many of them think we have too many people in the world as it
is.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

"pure kona" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:13:38 -0700, Joseph Littleshoes
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Even if such manipulation is ultimately benign, it seems very hubristic
>>of agribusiness to foist it on the public, we wont know for a hundred
>>years or more if any unforeseen results occur from such genetic
>>manipulation, and that hopefully will take that long, there is always at
>>least a chance that the Frankenfoods can become, even accidentally, a
>>plague, and that quickly.
>>
>>The agribusiness is trying to centralize and control food production &
>>distribution and that they have not learned from history what a bad idea
>>that is i can not accept, history speaks too loudly about the dangers of
>>food production and distribution being centralized, i can only assume
>>agribusiness is doing it out of pure greed, they want to patent their
>>seeds and make a farmer buy new ones every year rather than keeping
>>aside part of his previous crop for its seed. Pure greed.
>>
>>I often think that if our advancing technology fatally effects us it
>>will probly be by accident rather than intent. "Oops"."
>>
>>And its foolish to think the military isn't experimenting with genetic
>>manipulation for use as a weapon, in the chemical and biological armory.
>> And any of those could get loose "accidentally,"
>
> I know we have discussed this before, but I am passionate about GMO.
> Agribusiness is not really farming - I know. It's mechanical farming
> run by a corporate company using scientists and tons of machinery in
> tandem with engineered seed -in this article- RoundUp Ready seed.
>
> Don't think one farmer and his 5 acres, working hard to make each
> plant happy.
>
> One has to buy the seed from Monsanto. (I've mentioned the farmer who
> got pollen drift from a neighbor's Monsanto crop and was sued by
> Monsanto! The seed was growing illegally?) Thousands of acres making
> HFCS so that sugar from cane has been driven out of the US market for
> most companies--so how has your Campbell's tomato soup tasted this
> last decade- bit too sweet?
>
> Universities and their scientists have a lot to gain from Monsanto and
> other research dollars. It's hard to turn away the money. But in our
> little island County, we fought hard to keep GMO coffee out and not
> taint our heritage Kona Coffee . It was a mighty battle but we were
> convinced what we had is perfect and did not need to be
> "improved"----and proudly became the first US County to say NO to
> GMO.
>
> aloha,
> Cea

The funny thing is, farmers that bought into the idea of increasing their
yield beyond their wildest dreams with GMO crops are in far worse financial
shape growing 220 bushels per acre than when they were growing 60 bushels
per acre. The (government subsidized) overproduction has driven prices down
so far that they can't keep up with the mortgage payments on the bigger
equipment needed to sew and harvest those crops. Not being able to use the
seed from each crop and having to buy new seed every planting further drains
their resources. The family farm is pretty much dead in the US.

<rant off>
Jon

On 4/13/2010 7:13 PM, Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>> Good article in todays NY Times. I don't like these genetically
>>> engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
>>> starting to show, big time.
>>
>> There nothing wrong _per_se_ with genetically
>> engineered crops. What's wrong with adding a gene
>> from a bacterium or another plant to a food species?
>>
>> For example, there's a GMO rice which has been
>> given the genes needed to produce pro-vitamin A
>> precursors. But the environmentalist crazies
>> oppose its use under any and all circumstances,
>> even though it would save lives.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
>
> Even if such manipulation is ultimately benign, it seems very hubristic
> of agribusiness to foist it on the public, we wont know for a hundred
> years or more if any unforeseen results occur from such genetic
> manipulation, and that hopefully will take that long, there is always at
> least a chance that the Frankenfoods can become, even accidentally, a
> plague, and that quickly.

The same is true of selective breeding. What of it? Life is never
going to be risk free. On a scale of 1 to 10, corn spreading naturally
is about a -3.

> The agribusiness is trying to centralize and control food production &
> distribution and that they have not learned from history what a bad idea
> that is i can not accept, history speaks too loudly about the dangers of
> food production and distribution being centralized, i can only assume
> agribusiness is doing it out of pure greed, they want to patent their
> seeds and make a farmer buy new ones every year rather than keeping
> aside part of his previous crop for its seed. Pure greed.

They don't need genetic modification or patents to do that. Grow some
hybrid corn, harvest the kernels for seed, then plant the kernels next
year and see what comes up.

However for such food to "become a plague", that plan would have to fail
spectacularly.

> I often think that if our advancing technology fatally effects us it
> will probly be by accident rather than intent. "Oops"."
>
> And its foolish to think the military isn't experimenting with genetic
> manipulation for use as a weapon, in the chemical and biological armory.
> And any of those could get loose "accidentally,"

What does the creation of weapons have to do with the production of
food? "This technology can be used to make weapons so we shouldn't use
it to produce food" applies to tractors you know.

If you are this afraid of genetic engineering you haven't had a very
eventful life.

On Apr 13, 3:18*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> Good article in todays NY Times. * I don't like these genetically
> engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
> starting to show, big time.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...ronment/14crop....

GMO foods--excellent! Bring it on.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2010-04-14 04:41:33 -0700, J. Clarke said:

> If you are this afraid of genetic engineering you haven't had a very
> eventful life.

Or you don't have unqualified faith in everything done by a bunch of
guys in lab jackets, and everything said by "experts".

I remember as a child when DDT was considered wholly benign to flora
and fauna to these same lab jackets. That same summer ('62?) everywhere
I went I saw dead birds. I saw a dead bird almost every day.
--
Thank you and have a nice day.

Damaeus wrote:
>
> It artificially breaks the synergy of how the food has naturally evolved
> in its own environment. It would be like some alien species coming to
> Earth and planting seeds from their planet on ours. People evolved with
> their foods, and over time have come to have a synergic relationship with
> their foods. Genetic modification disrupts that synergy and health
> problems can be the result as our bodies try to figure out what to do with
> it. Sometimes the result can be allergic reactions.

Yes, it breaks our woo-woo and it's bad feng shui.

If I put a celery gene in a carrot, how is that going
to be any more "toxic" than eating celery with carrots?

Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
> Even if such manipulation is ultimately benign, it seems very hubristic
> of agribusiness to foist it on the public, we wont know for a hundred
> years or more if any unforeseen results occur from such genetic
> manipulation, and that hopefully will take that long, there is always at
> least a chance that the Frankenfoods can become, even accidentally, a
> plague, and that quickly.

How do we know electromagnetic fields won't have
adverse effects we won't know about for a hundred
years or more? Stop the lightbulb and its artificial
light! Only use natural light from the Sun and fire!

pure kona wrote:
>
> One has to buy the seed from Monsanto. (I've mentioned the farmer who
> got pollen drift from a neighbor's Monsanto crop and was sued by
> Monsanto! The seed was growing illegally?) Thousands of acres making
> HFCS so that sugar from cane has been driven out of the US market for
> most companies--so how has your Campbell's tomato soup tasted this
> last decade- bit too sweet?

GMO isn't responsible for HFCS. It's sugar price
regulation which created a market for HFCS, which
is outside of regulation. Without sugar price
regulation which raises the price of sucrose
in the U.S. to about 2X to 4X the world price,
there would no market for HFCS at all. HFCS
makes it possible for cola and soda makers to
remain competitive, but that doesn't help the
other users of sugar. You can't make most types
of candy out of HFCS, so we've lost most of our
candy industry to Canada and Mexico.

Damaeus wrote:

> It artificially breaks the synergy of how the food has naturally
> evolved in its own environment. It would be like some alien species
> coming to Earth and planting seeds from their planet on ours. People
> evolved with their foods, and over time have come to have a synergic
> relationship with their foods. Genetic modification disrupts that
> synergy and health problems can be the result as our bodies try to
> figure out what to do with it. Sometimes the result can be allergic
> reactions.

In fact, when did allergy and intolerance to gluten start to spread? When we
started messing up with wheat circa 50 years ago, using crossbreading and
exposure to radioactivity to accelerate the many generations and allow the
selection of high yield wheat verieties (like the italian Creso) in a bunch
of years instead of many decades.
Gluten intolerance was never heard of in my area until the 60's, and was
very limited till then. Nowadays it's almost normal.
I know that radioactive bombed seeds and GMO seeds are two different things,
but they both bring to a different genetic patterns.
--
ViLco
Don't think pink, drink rose'

On Apr 14, 12:11*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> pure kona wrote:
>
> > One has to buy the seed from Monsanto. (I've mentioned the farmer who
> > got pollen drift from a neighbor's Monsanto crop and was sued by
> > Monsanto! The seed was growing illegally?) *Thousands of acres making
> > HFCS so that sugar from cane has been driven out of the US market for
> > most companies--so how has your Campbell's tomato soup tasted this
> > last decade- bit too sweet?
>
> GMO isn't responsible for HFCS. *It's sugar price
> regulation which created a market for HFCS, which
> is outside of regulation. *Without sugar price
> regulation which raises the price of sucrose
> in the U.S. to about 2X to 4X the world price,
> there would no market for HFCS at all. *HFCS
> makes it possible for cola and soda makers to
> remain competitive, but that doesn't help the
> other users of sugar. *You can't make most types
> of candy out of HFCS, so we've lost most of our
> candy industry to Canada and Mexico.

Aren't the corn subsidies a big part of the picture, too?

Cindy Hamilton

In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Wed,
14 Apr 2010 09:04:13 -0700 the following:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > It artificially breaks the synergy of how the food has naturally
> > evolved in its own environment. It would be like some alien species
> > coming to Earth and planting seeds from their planet on ours. People
> > evolved with their foods, and over time have come to have a synergic
> > relationship with their foods. Genetic modification disrupts that
> > synergy and health problems can be the result as our bodies try to
> > figure out what to do with it. Sometimes the result can be allergic
> > reactions.
>
> Yes, it breaks our woo-woo and it's bad feng shui.

o.o If you want to think of it that way, go ahead. I don't go in for
woo-woo and feng shui. I'm more of a realist.

> If I put a celery gene in a carrot, how is that going
> to be any more "toxic" than eating celery with carrots?

Ask someone who does that line of work. Of course, he probably will tell
you there's nothing wrong with it since the carrot would still look like a
carrot. But I already explained what happened just with cotton pickers in
India. They broke out in rashes from picking genetically-modified cotton.
I don't know if they stuck a celery gene in the cotton, or a gene from a
12" penis. The fact remains that genetically-modified cotton gave the
cotton pickers rashes.

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

On Apr 13, 1:18*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> Good article in today's NY Times. * I don't like these genetically
> engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
> starting to show, big time.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...ronment/14crop....

==
There are no detrimental effects...the corn, soybean and cotton are
not changed into a poisonous form. Where do these dummies get their
information? The only detrimental effects are the traits bred into
these patented plants "leaking" into the general plant populations
making weed control more difficult for those who don't follow the
Monsanto's of the world and their money making schemes.
==

On Apr 14, 1:40*pm, "ViLco" > wrote:
> Damaeus wrote:
> > It artificially breaks the synergy of how the food has naturally
> > evolved in its own environment. *It would be like some alien species
> > coming to Earth and planting seeds from their planet on ours. *People
> > evolved with their foods, and over time have come to have a synergic
> > relationship with their foods. *Genetic modification disrupts that
> > synergy and health problems can be the result as our bodies try to
> > figure out what to do with it. *Sometimes the result can be allergic
> > reactions.
>
> In fact, when did allergy and intolerance to gluten start to spread? When we
> started messing up with wheat circa 50 years ago, using crossbreading and
> exposure to radioactivity to accelerate the many generations and allow the
> selection of high yield wheat verieties (like the italian Creso) in a bunch
> of years instead of many decades.
> Gluten intolerance was never heard of in my area until the 60's, and was
> very limited till then. Nowadays it's almost normal.
> I know that radioactive bombed seeds and GMO seeds are two different things,
> but they both bring to a different genetic patterns.

Is it that gluten intolerance increased, or that we are now better
able to identify
it?

It used to be that people just died mysteriously, or "failed to
thrive". Now we
can more frequently identify the cause.

Cindy Hamilton

Damaeus wrote:
>
> I remember reading about cotton grown in India, I believe it was. For
> years, they only grew natural cotton. Then some company came in and
> wanted to sell their genetically modified cotton seeds to the plantation,
> saying their crop yields would increase. The harvesters of the
> genetically modified cotton began breaking out in rashes. Imagine what
> the result would be of people wearing clothes made from genetically
> modified cotton. Now they're finding that the genetically modified cotton
> plants are seriously destroying the health of the soil.
>
> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuici...ottonIndia.php

I don't believe that article for a second.
It's from an anti-GMO web site. If it were
really true that Bt cotton was causing rashes
and suicides, there would documentation of that
from non-crazy sources. Even the Daily Mail is
more credible than these lunatics.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:58:42 -0500, Damaeus wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Wed,
> 14 Apr 2010 09:04:13 -0700 the following:
>
>> Damaeus wrote:
>>
>>> It artificially breaks the synergy of how the food has naturally
>>> evolved in its own environment. It would be like some alien species
>>> coming to Earth and planting seeds from their planet on ours. People
>>> evolved with their foods, and over time have come to have a synergic
>>> relationship with their foods. Genetic modification disrupts that
>>> synergy and health problems can be the result as our bodies try to
>>> figure out what to do with it. Sometimes the result can be allergic
>>> reactions.
>>
>> Yes, it breaks our woo-woo and it's bad feng shui.
>
> o.o If you want to think of it that way, go ahead. I don't go in for
> woo-woo and feng shui. I'm more of a realist.

<hysterical laughter>

blake

ViLco wrote:
>
> In fact, when did allergy and intolerance to gluten start to spread?

Ask an archeologist about the bones of a hunter gather society and the
bones of a grain farming society. If it doesn't have to be those
specific disorders then the answer is when humans started eatign grain
as their predominant staple food.

> When we
> started messing up with wheat circa 50 years ago, using crossbreading and
> exposure to radioactivity to accelerate the many generations and allow the
> selection of high yield wheat verieties (like the italian Creso) in a bunch
> of years instead of many decades.

That was also the start of a societal trend damning meat and praising
low fat so the percentage of calories from grain went why up. That was
also the dawn of the fast food industry and an escalation of "super
sized" meals.

> Gluten intolerance was never heard of in my area until the 60's, and was
> very limited till then. Nowadays it's almost normal.

People still tell my I'm making it up when I decline to eat wheat.
There was a lot of ignored and undiagnosed intolerance then I say.

> I know that radioactive bombed seeds and GMO seeds are two different things,
> but they both bring to a different genetic patterns.

Agreed, but there are so many changes it is very hard to point at one
and have any certainty it's the core problem. Think of people who
refuse to have their kids vaccinated because the vaccines may cause
damage. Even the low chance of getting the disease in question is far
worse on the average and each kid not vaccinated is another starting
point for an epidemic. People are not rational about stuff and that
includes seeing a long list of explanations then focusing on one. It
ignores all of the other causes. And I've only listed three others.

There's one type of selective breeding that I'm not worried about.
Folks are selectively cross breeding with wild or nearly wild varieties
for a specific trait and then doing selection to move that chosen trait
into the general population of the crop. That has wider possibilities
than simple selection. The old concept of "new blood" still applies
just more carefully done.

J. Clarke wrote:
> On 4/13/2010 7:13 PM, Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good article in todays NY Times. I don't like these genetically
>>>> engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
>>>> starting to show, big time.
>>>
>>>
>>> There nothing wrong _per_se_ with genetically
>>> engineered crops. What's wrong with adding a gene
>>> from a bacterium or another plant to a food species?
>>>
>>> For example, there's a GMO rice which has been
>>> given the genes needed to produce pro-vitamin A
>>> precursors. But the environmentalist crazies
>>> oppose its use under any and all circumstances,
>>> even though it would save lives.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
>>
>>
>> Even if such manipulation is ultimately benign, it seems very hubristic
>> of agribusiness to foist it on the public, we wont know for a hundred
>> years or more if any unforeseen results occur from such genetic
>> manipulation, and that hopefully will take that long, there is always at
>> least a chance that the Frankenfoods can become, even accidentally, a
>> plague, and that quickly.
>
>
> The same is true of selective breeding. What of it? Life is never
> going to be risk free. On a scale of 1 to 10, corn spreading naturally
> is about a -3.
>
>> The agribusiness is trying to centralize and control food production &
>> distribution and that they have not learned from history what a bad idea
>> that is i can not accept, history speaks too loudly about the dangers of
>> food production and distribution being centralized, i can only assume
>> agribusiness is doing it out of pure greed, they want to patent their
>> seeds and make a farmer buy new ones every year rather than keeping
>> aside part of his previous crop for its seed. Pure greed.
>
>
> They don't need genetic modification or patents to do that. Grow some
> hybrid corn, harvest the kernels for seed, then plant the kernels next
> year and see what comes up.
>
> However for such food to "become a plague", that plan would have to fail
> spectacularly.
>
>> I often think that if our advancing technology fatally effects us it
>> will probly be by accident rather than intent. "Oops"."
>>
>> And its foolish to think the military isn't experimenting with genetic
>> manipulation for use as a weapon, in the chemical and biological armory.
>> And any of those could get loose "accidentally,"
>
>
> What does the creation of weapons have to do with the production of
> food? "This technology can be used to make weapons so we shouldn't use
> it to produce food" applies to tractors you know.
>
> If you are this afraid of genetic engineering you haven't had a very
> eventful life.
>
>
The hubris of 'science' needs to be severely restricted, research is one
thing, tampering with food crops another.
--
JL

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>>Even if such manipulation is ultimately benign, it seems very hubristic
>>of agribusiness to foist it on the public, we wont know for a hundred
>>years or more if any unforeseen results occur from such genetic
>>manipulation, and that hopefully will take that long, there is always at
>>least a chance that the Frankenfoods can become, even accidentally, a
>>plague, and that quickly.
>
>
> How do we know electromagnetic fields won't have
> adverse effects we won't know about for a hundred
> years or more? Stop the lightbulb and its artificial
> light! Only use natural light from the Sun and fire!

Let me know when you start eating light bulbs, which were just hot
wires, now glowing gas (and that's another story all together).

The jury is still out on the long term effects of living intimately with
cell phones virtually strapped to a persons head 24/7.

What bothers me more that the existence of GMO's is the rush big
business is in to promote and propagate it, and purely for the sake of
its own greed.

Im no Luddite but i am convinced more restraint by 'science' would be a
good thing.
--
JL

Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:

> The hubris of 'science' needs to be severely restricted, research
> is one thing, tampering with food crops another.

For sure.

(And remember, in the U.S. ingredients labeled as organic cannot
be genetically modified.)

Steve

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:31:56 -0700, Joseph Littleshoes
> wrote:

>Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
ll phones virtually strapped to a persons head 24/7.
>
>What bothers me more that the existence of GMO's is the rush big
>business is in to promote and propagate it, and purely for the sake of
>its own greed.
>
>Im no Luddite but i am convinced more restraint by 'science' would be a
>good thing.

Exactly my concern. The big push is unnerving and not to be cynical,
but the push is for the money of researching and modifying genetic
organisms. Not so much what happens afterward.

In our case the scientists insisted we could have better coffee- they
said it like a fact. But we don't have many pests and we like the
taste, we replied--"BUT it could get better", they replied. I don't
think the scientists had especially notable coffee palates. They were
out of their league but the money was good!

And another issue, many countries that buy our coffee like Japan which
buys a whole lot of the very best, has said No to GMO. Okay, it is a
no-brainer.

So although the farmer and the consumer did not ask for it, it was
mindblowing to hear the scientists say we needed it.

But our little county said "No" to GMO coffee. Rah!

aloha,
Cea

In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Wed,
14 Apr 2010 13:11:00 -0700 the following:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > I remember reading about cotton grown in India, I believe it was. For
> > years, they only grew natural cotton. Then some company came in and
> > wanted to sell their genetically modified cotton seeds to the plantation,
> > saying their crop yields would increase. The harvesters of the
> > genetically modified cotton began breaking out in rashes. Imagine what
> > the result would be of people wearing clothes made from genetically
> > modified cotton. Now they're finding that the genetically modified cotton
> > plants are seriously destroying the health of the soil.
> >
> > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuici...ottonIndia.php
>
> I don't believe that article for a second.
> It's from an anti-GMO web site.

That makes a lot of sense: "I don't believe that because the website
where it's hosted is posting articles that are on-topic for its purpose."

I suppose you do believe the articles saying that GMO products are safe,
even though they're hosted on pro-GMO sites?

> If it were really true that Bt cotton was causing rashes and suicides,
> there would documentation of that from non-crazy sources. Even the
> Daily Mail is more credible than these lunatics.

Maybe these sources aren't run by raving lunatics. Of course, if you've
already made your mind up that there's nothing wrong with
genetically-modified cotton, I'm sure any website which posts articles
contrary to your belief would be branded a lunatic source:


http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2...1617501300.htm

The study had also collected anecdotal evidence
about other side effects of Bt cotton on plants
and animals.

For instance, cattle deaths had been reported in
areas where they grazed in harvested Bt cotton
fields, women working in cotton fields had
complained of rashes, and there were reports that
mango trees were not flowering.


http://www.jstor.org/pss/4415193

Summarized by Yours Truly, since the page is a magazine scan and not
copy/paste-friendly: This article, under "Unsupported Claims", details how
a study commissioned by Mahyco-Monsanto showed that Bt cotton crops had
outstanding performance, and an earlier and thoroughly discredited study
by Qaim and Zilberman showed an 87 percent increase with Monsanto's Bt
cotton, but that study was only done on the field trial data of Monsanto.
Every other agency reported results contrary: that Monsanto's varieties
are the worst performers when compared to local hybrids.


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090203/punjab1.htm

Punjab farmers, who have been going out of their
way to get good Bt cotton seed hoping for higher
yields, may not be aware that genetically modified
(GM) crops come with serious health issues.
Studies in India as well the United States have
established that contact with Bt cotton causes
allergies and skin rash, besides its consumption
has caused death in animals. In other words there
is growing awareness about +IBw-irrefutable evidence
about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being
dangerous for human health+IB0-.


http://citruspie.com/health-highligh...-eat-gm-foods/

Touching or wearing a GM cotton product may also
be a risk. Farm workers throughout India where bt
cotton was introduced have become ill with rashes
and flu like symptoms. Transdermal absorption of
toxins likely caused their illness. In studies
done on female rats fed GM soy, most of their
babies died within three weeks versus the control
group where only 10% died. In another study,
where rats were fed GM tomatoes, 30% developed
bleeding stomachs. People who are not allergic to
corn or soy can react to GM corn or soy. They
contain proteins not found in the original plants.


http://www.nafwa.org/general-nutriti...yday-food.html

It's important to realize that when the BT is
spliced into the corn, it's thousands of times
more concentrated than the spray version.

According to Smith, thousands of farm workers who
harvest BT-cotton in India are complaining of
rashes all over their bodies. And animals grazing
on BT cotton plants after harvest have died,
sometimes within a day or so.

This should tell you something.

Now, some will point out the fact that humans are
not dying like flies from eating GM foods. But
the death of grazing cattle is likely the result
of an acute reaction to large exposure. So, as
Smith states, it's still an indicator for what
might be happening in the human system, albeit at
a much slower rate.

For example, Smith mentions an Italian study where
they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice
expressed a wide variety of immune responses
commonly associated with diseases such as:

- Rheumatoid arthritis

- Inflammatory bowel disease

- Osteoporosis

- Atherosclerosis

- Various types of cancer

- Allergies

- Lou Gehrig's disease



Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

Damaeus wrote:
>
> In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Wed,
> 14 Apr 2010 13:11:00 -0700 the following:
>
> > I don't believe that article for a second.
> > It's from an anti-GMO web site.
>
> That makes a lot of sense: "I don't believe that because the website
> where it's hosted is posting articles that are on-topic for its purpose."

If they are posting garbage articles, it's fair
to consider all of its articles to be garbage.

> http://citruspie.com/health-highligh...-eat-gm-foods/

This is another example of garbage. It's from
the American Academy of Environmental Medicine,
a well-known crazy group. They promote fears
of chemicals that are non-scientific, as described
here.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/mcs.html

If there was a shred of truth in the fear-mongering
over GMO crops, it would be possible to cite
non-crazy sources of information to document
these alleged adverse effects. As you have
demonstrated, that is not possible.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:
>
> > The hubris of 'science' needs to be severely restricted, research
> > is one thing, tampering with food crops another.
>
> For sure.
>
> (And remember, in the U.S. ingredients labeled as organic cannot
> be genetically modified.)

And that is relevant how? The definition was created
to suit the tastes of the anti-GMO crowd, not based
on any scientific evaluation of risks. It's just like
the anti-vaccination people -- whip up unfounded fears,
and make a little industry selling books on Oprah.

In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Wed,
14 Apr 2010 09:11:36 -0700 the following:

> GMO isn't responsible for HFCS. It's sugar price regulation which
> created a market for HFCS, which is outside of regulation. Without
> sugar price regulation which raises the price of sucrose in the U.S. to
> about 2X to 4X the world price, there would no market for HFCS at all.
> HFCS makes it possible for cola and soda makers to remain competitive,
> but that doesn't help the other users of sugar. You can't make most
> types of candy out of HFCS, so we've lost most of our candy industry to
> Canada and Mexico.

So the producers of HFCS did the same thing to sugar that DuPont did to
the makers of hemp ropes, except that sugar couldn't be made illegal
outright. They had to use a different tactic to drive it out of
existence.

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Wed,
14 Apr 2010 23:49:12 -0700 the following:

> And that is relevant how? The definition was created to suit the tastes
> of the anti-GMO crowd, not based on any scientific evaluation of risks.
> It's just like the anti-vaccination people -- whip up unfounded fears,
> and make a little industry selling books on Oprah.

Oh come on. Vaccines are made from the disease they vaccinate against.
You're essentially injecting yourself with a disease and antigens, and
hoping the vacinne kick-starts the immune system into building up a
defense against the disease. If you already have some kind of undiagnosed
immune system problem, there's a chance the vaccine will not only not
work, but will make you sick. There's a good reason to avoid vaccines,
and ultimately it's about choice unless you're in a situation where
vaccines are required. And with all the genetically modified food out
there giving our immune systems challenges as it is, there's no need to
overload it with unneeded vaccines.


Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Wed,
14 Apr 2010 23:45:06 -0700 the following:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Wed,
> > 14 Apr 2010 13:11:00 -0700 the following:
> >
> > > I don't believe that article for a second.
> > > It's from an anti-GMO web site.
> >
> > That makes a lot of sense: "I don't believe that because the website
> > where it's hosted is posting articles that are on-topic for its purpose."
>
> If they are posting garbage articles, it's fair
> to consider all of its articles to be garbage.
>
> > http://citruspie.com/health-highligh...-eat-gm-foods/
>
> This is another example of garbage. It's from the American Academy of
> Environmental Medicine, a well-known crazy group. They promote fears of
> chemicals that are non-scientific, as described here.
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/mcs.html
>
> If there was a shred of truth in the fear-mongering over GMO crops, it
> would be possible to cite non-crazy sources of information to document
> these alleged adverse effects. As you have demonstrated, that is not
> possible.

Those sources are not crazy just because you say they are. You seem to be
against anyone who has any kind of concern over the effects of things like
genetically modified foods, cotton, vaccines and whatnot. You could be on
someone's payroll, expected to come onto rec.food.cooking, where
discussions about genetically modified foods are likely to arise, where
you can try to characterize as idiots those who actually have valid
concerns. Your calling everyone crazy who has a concern of the type I
describe isn't really fair. You could be exposing your own evilness by
taking the side of Monsanto and vaccine producers.

Your quoting of Quackwatch is suspsect. Those people are crazy, too. They
believe nothing out there is bad for them, just because they luuuuuv
science and believe that if science modifies an apple to make it twice as
large, twice as sweet, and twice as juicy, then it must mean the apple is
better for us, as well, even if it gives you pancreatic herpes unawares.

I used to be on Quackwatch's e-mail discussion list, and that's a pack of
lunatics if I've ever been caught in the middle of one. Every concern
that came along, they laughed at and rolled their eyes at, just because
the concern questioned the glory of science.

Congratulations. You're just as looney as they are.

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
> Good article in todays NY Times. I don't like these genetically
> engineered crops at all and apparently the detrimental effects are
> starting to show, big time.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...14crop.html?hp

HALF TRUTHS - What percentage of the corn crops is used for human
consumption as corn???? Do you know?

Dimitri

Damaeus wrote:
>
> Those sources are not crazy just because you say they are. You seem to be
> against anyone who has any kind of concern over the effects of things like
> genetically modified foods, cotton, vaccines and whatnot. You could be on
> someone's payroll, expected to come onto rec.food.cooking, where

That is so typical of the anti-science crazies.
You automatically imply anyone who supports
evidence-based science is on the payroll of
Monsanto or Big Pharma. Just for the record,
I'm not. This is just your lame attempt to
smear me by implying a dishonest motive.

In news:rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson > posted on Thu,
15 Apr 2010 09:25:08 -0700 the following:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > Those sources are not crazy just because you say they are. You seem
> > to be against anyone who has any kind of concern over the effects of
> > things like genetically modified foods, cotton, vaccines and whatnot.
> > You could be on someone's payroll, expected to come onto
> > rec.food.cooking, where
>
> That is so typical of the anti-science crazies.

So typical of the pro-science crazies.

> You automatically imply anyone who supports evidence-based science is
> on the payroll of Monsanto or Big Pharma. Just for the record, I'm
> not. This is just your lame attempt to smear me by implying a
> dishonest motive.

Turnabout is fair play. If you assume that anyone who questions vaccines
and genetically modified food is suffering mental delusions, I can turn
around and imply that you're just positioned at the opposite extreme. I
fall in the middle, myself. I haven't been vaccinated for anything since
I was a teenager, and I'm so damned sickness-free that I don't even have
"doctor". I've been to the doctor for a sickness one time since 1995, and
that was because I thought I might have had strep throat, which I read can
lead to calcification of the heart valves.

From 1992 to 1995, I saw a doctor maybe three times. One of those I was
sick for two weeks straight and thought I was going to die. I probably
would have gotten well on my own, but the idea of eating was so disgusting
that I don't think I ate for two weeks, and probably didn't drink that
much either. One day I finally decided to get up and force myself to eat
a piece of buttered toast. I followed that up with a second slice of
buttered toast with a little apple jelly on it. By lunch time, I was
headed out the door to get popcorn chicken from KFC, and for supper I went
out and had spaghetti at Pizza Hut. Just eating food that one day shot my
energy level into the stratosphere and I felt wonderful by that evening.

Interesting that most of the times when I was sick were much closer in
time to my last "booster" shot for vaccinations. The further in the past
my last booster shot resides, the less I get sick. Interesting. I don't
take flu shots, and I don't get the flu.

So I go by experience. In my experience, I do well staying off vaccines
and medications, and I just don't get sick. Hell, I don't even exercise
or eat vegetables every day of my life (but I do eat them), and I still
don't get sick.

So much for all the science that says certain things are required to be
healthy.

That said, I'm not against science. I just don't praise it as the apex of
truth. Even science, itself, says it's not about finding truth as much as
it's about finding and detailing what is demonstrable. That's why science
can't prove God exists. It's not able to.

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
>>Those sources are not crazy just because you say they are. You seem to be
>>against anyone who has any kind of concern over the effects of things like
>>genetically modified foods, cotton, vaccines and whatnot. You could be on
>>someone's payroll, expected to come onto rec.food.cooking, where
>
>
> That is so typical of the anti-science crazies.
> You automatically imply anyone who supports
> evidence-based science is on the payroll of
> Monsanto or Big Pharma. Just for the record,
> I'm not. This is just your lame attempt to
> smear me by implying a dishonest motive.

Your doing the same thing in reverse, any questioning of the
appropriateness of the convergence of big science, big business, big
government you label a kook or worse.


Do you really want BVG hormones in your kids milk, other
hormones/chemicals in your meats? to be forced by big government to have
chemicals pumped into your kids bodies when the drug companies routinely
make mistakes and have to recall drugs from distribution.

Is it really fair and done for altruistic reasons that big government
caved to the GMO food lobby and passed laws making them exempt from
HAVING to label their products as GMO's? Shouldn't such an alteration
in the substance be labeled as such and let the free market decide if
people will purchase the genetically modified product. And don't even
get me started on big business attempts to push irradiation of food down
the publics throat.

Perhaps those big business/science/government types that are motivated
by arrogance and greed should be forced to use these products for a few
generations as a "control group" before they are made widely available
to the public?
--
JL

Rod Out back wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:31:56 -0700, Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Even if such manipulation is ultimately benign, it seems very hubristic
>>>>of agribusiness to foist it on the public, we wont know for a hundred
>>>>years or more if any unforeseen results occur from such genetic
>>>>manipulation, and that hopefully will take that long, there is always at
>>>>least a chance that the Frankenfoods can become, even accidentally, a
>>>>plague, and that quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>>How do we know electromagnetic fields won't have
>>>adverse effects we won't know about for a hundred
>>>years or more? Stop the lightbulb and its artificial
>>>light! Only use natural light from the Sun and fire!
>>
>>Let me know when you start eating light bulbs, which were just hot
>>wires, now glowing gas (and that's another story all together).
>>
>>The jury is still out on the long term effects of living intimately with
>>cell phones virtually strapped to a persons head 24/7.
>>
>>What bothers me more that the existence of GMO's is the rush big
>>business is in to promote and propagate it, and purely for the sake of
>>its own greed.
>
>
> It's own greed??
>
> I like how you're worried about the effects of GMO's on us 100 years in the
> future, and yet you neglect the multitude of other factors that might affect the
> human genome in that time.

Thas an unwarrented assumption on your part.

> Why dont we work on trying to feed the world in the here and now??
> Cereal crops that are unpalatable to insect pests?
> Fruits that will last much longer after picking?
> Soil Funguses that only target invasive woody weed species?
> GM organisims that might be able to break down some of the massive pile of
> non-biodegradable garbage the human species leaves behind?
> The list goes on..

And so do the possible unanticipated side effects
..
>
> You seem to miss the fact that much of the original push for GM crops was to
> vastly reduce the amount of herbicide/insecticide you need to grow the plants.
> When GM crops werent around, the public were screaming for reduced useage of
> pesticides & herbicides. GM offers a very elegant method of reducing the
> residue issue, and therefore offering you cheaper, cleaner food.

"Elegant" in your opinion, with such an sense of aesthetics you would
probly praise Frankenstien's monster as 'elegant'
>
> I'm not saying it's perfect, but perhaps you might consider that it might
> actually be better for you than pre-GM foods?
>

The devil you know....

Just cause something can be done, done not mean it should be done.
>
>>Im no Luddite but i am convinced more restraint by 'science' would be a
>>good thing.
>
>
> I dunno. I see some of the science in both health, farming and livestock, and I
> can see some very innovative solutions to long-term problems on the horizon.
> Some of those solutions cant come soon enough, in my opinion.
>
> I'm all for extensive testing, but some of the new technologies are brilliant.

Im particularly upset with the collusion of big business and government
attempting to force new technologies on people.
--
JL
>
>
> ----------
>
> Rod - Out back

Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> That is so typical of the anti-science crazies.
> ...
> Is it really fair and done for altruistic reasons that big government
> caved to the GMO food lobby and passed laws making them exempt from
> HAVING to label their products as GMO's? Shouldn't such an alteration
> in the substance be labeled as such and let the free market decide if
> people will purchase the genetically modified product. And don't even
> get me started on big business attempts to push irradiation of food down
> the publics throat.

Letting the anti-science crazies have their way had such an effect on
the nuclear industry that there's an overreaction here. Sure, a middle
ground would have been better for both.

> Perhaps those big business/science/government types that are motivated
> by arrogance and greed should be forced to use these products for a few
> generations as a "control group" before they are made widely available
> to the public?

There are perhaps on both sides. Perhaps one side is motivated by
irrational hysteria. Perhaps one side is motivated by arrogance. Hmmm,
perhaps isn't the word in either case. Definitely in both cases.