GMO Foods - Yes on I-522

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Glazer

I wish someone would develop a synthetic wheat. Or any staple crop. If it could be manufactured at lower cost in petro and land it could save us from over population for a good long while. And be key in our moving out into the Solar system. Which could save us for good.

They did, it's called "The Green Revolution" Look up Norman Borlaug.

Here is what Monsanto says about their own wheat processes. http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/wheat.aspx

Apparently wheat was a bad example as they say that no wheat biotech products are available commercially.

Corn however:

http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/wheat.aspx

Corn has plenty of biotechnology products available.

Monsanto’s corn pipeline includes products that will help farmers produce more while reducing inputs. Our biotechnology-derived products offer farmers higher yields and better crop protection against environmental stresses and pests. Every acre of corn faces some degree of stress at some point in the growing season. Our breeding research in corn focuses on ways to mitigate these stressors through disease resistance and improving stalk and roots strength.

Heritage crops are a good thing as well. If mono-crops fail in a big way. It would be nice to have something to fall back on. Billions would die but those who survive might stand a chance.

Oh shit, this is way too sane for this topic. Take your anti-science and anti-business ideology somewhere else! Biodiversity is hippy bullshit!

[Fenris]

[QUOTE=mswas;1027008]

Wheat-like organic machines manufactured in a laboratory.

....Wut?

[Steophan]

I don't think he understands what "synthetic" means. Or "machine".

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by mswas

Comment devoid of content. Basically just a fancy way of saying, "U t3h stoopid."

Quite the contrary, the content is there, although you are too dim to realise it.

I was making the science precise point that your scare phrase "genetic muddling" is at once imprecise and inaccurate. It is precisely a phrase without analytical content but aimed to generate an irrational emotive reaction.

That you do not have a clue as to the science is illustrated here:

I understand that we have been cross-breeding for years. What is anti-science is claiming that doing a graft from one plant to another is the same as turning genes on and off in a laboratory.

Grafting is not cross breeding you whitless twit. Confusion over these basic terms illustrates how profoundly your ignorance runs and the transparent degree to which you merely are parroting anti-science activist glurge.

A graft does not changed the genome of the host.

Cross breeding, cross fertilization, hybridization and selective breeding - all done without direct genomic action - can and does modify the actual genome, including the introduction of novel - new that is to you - genes.

Long-term testing is important.

And testing has been going on for decades, for all kinds of things. But never enough for the Anti Activist who hides behind slogans.

After all a lot of the nasty shit these companies put out that caused cancer in millions was also approved by the same rigorous testing procedures. If this were 40 years ago, you would be calling me an idiot for worrying about Agent Orange or DDT. Telling me I should trust the fancy folks who do the testing.

So the usual argument from ignorance. Can't trust them men in lab coats.

And this is not anti-science....

And the comment

GMOs that are resistant to pesticides have higher amounts of trace pesticide in them when they get to market.

What is actually of utility to say is plants where high usage of pesticide occurs have higher trace amounts of pesticide.

That tells one rather little.

Is the pesticide of any toxicity to mammals?
Is the higher trace in any way meaningfully different?

Regardless, reduction in pesticide usage is one objective of GenMod, particularly aimed at frontier markets. There isn't any other way to achieve reduction and increase production on a large scale given pest losses (among other issues of course).

So still you have not even addressed the central issue, which is whether or not we should label GMO food. You have just called everyone an idiot and claimed they are anti-science when the ONLY thing that has been said is that we should provide consumers with more information so that they can make their own choices about what food they put into their bodies.

No it should not be labelled because you idiots are too ignorant to meaningfully differentiate in any case.

Now, I am going to look at your cites to studies, but since you agreed that how these transfers occur in nature is as yet poorly understood

,

I do like it how you ignore that your bald assertion that no studies had been done is falsified.

As to the second: in the natural world bacterial and other genes have gotten into other organisms all by their little lonesomes.

As you are exposed to bacteria and viruses on, in and infecting your food without any human intervention, on orders of magnitudes vastly beyond what any human modification could possibly achieve - even if this occurred on a large scale, I fail to see how your scare mongering has any rational sense at all.

This is about on the order of people who freak out about 'radiation' while stubbornly remaining ignorant that radiation is part of the natural world and that they are constantly exposed to radiation in the due course of merely living.

Originally Posted by mswas

Since he over-estimated the population by about 30%,

I typed a numeral 9 instead of a 7 in responding to your idiocy, it wasn't a bloody estimate you dim whitted git.

I would like to know how he is so right? Or if not, where does he get his population estimates of having 2 billion more people than most estimates stipulate.

Because the fucking data is there. Unless you have some actual data about agricultural productivity that contradicts me, eh?

But we can be sure no, this merely hand waving to attempt to distract.

Originally Posted by mswas

This is incorrect. I thought finance was your thing. How can you not know that biotech is a fast growing industry in this country and that some of the biggest companies in America are biotech firms?

I gave an opinion as to relative attention and investment levels, and was thinking of Ag. I stand by the opinion although it is a superficial one.

Enough of the Mswas show.

[Lounsbury]

The actual arguments are

1. Genetically Modified is not defined in a meaningful fashion, and consumers are not actually be given useful actionable information
2. Identification and traceability in the logistics value chain is massively expensive and near impossible to implement cost effectively
3. There is no meaningful science supporting a generalised labelling program, only non-science based 'fears'
4. Inappropriate labelling will lead product to be subject to scare tactics by Activists without any science behind them (a non-abstract & non theoretical risk, witness the disinformation and actual physical attacks on Golden Rice production)

The Golden Rice example amply illustrates the dishonest nature of anti GenMod agitation, and an ample reason why labelling is not to be supported. Additionally, anyone understanding logistics chains for agriculture will understand that it is simply not a reasonable or realistic goal.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

I was making the science precise point that your scare phrase "genetic muddling" is at once imprecise and inaccurate. It is precisely a phrase without analytical content but aimed to generate an irrational emotive reaction.

I said 'meddling' not 'muddling'.

That you do not have a clue as to the science is illustrated here:


Grafting is not cross breeding you whitless twit. Confusion over these basic terms illustrates how profoundly your ignorance runs and the transparent degree to which you merely are parroting anti-science activist glurge.

You keep misquoting me, but I'm the idiot? I never said that grafting and cross-breeding are the same thing. I said that neither one is the same as turning genes on and off in a lab.

A graft does not changed the genome of the host.

Good, so we are in agreement here.

Cross breeding, cross fertilization, hybridization and selective breeding - all done without direct genomic action - can and does modify the actual genome, including the introduction of novel - new that is to you - genes.

Yes.

And testing has been going on for decades, for all kinds of things. But never enough for the Anti Activist who hides behind slogans.

And a lot of the products produced by these corporations have been found to definitively cause Cancer. Those same products were approved.

Long-term means studied over the course of a decade. But they introduce new strains every year, so every year it's changing. Kind of like how the pharmaceutical industry 'extensively tests' it's drugs but has to recall dangerous drugs every year. No doubt you find this to be an anti-science position even though it's 100% factually correct.

Testing some monkeys and then 1000 patients for a couple of months is not the same as studying the impact of an entire population over the course of a generation.

So the usual argument from ignorance. Can't trust them men in lab coats.

Again you misrepresent my position.

And this is not anti-science....

The straw man lie that you attribute to me, is certainly anti-science, I agree with that.

What is actually of utility to say is plants where high usage of pesticide occurs have higher trace amounts of pesticide.

That tells one rather little.

Why do you continue to ignore my point in favor of calling me an idiot? You have yet to make the argument as to why giving a consumer less information is pro-science. Please stick to the subject. How is having less information pro-science? Every science teacher I ever had was in favor of having more information.

Is the pesticide of any toxicity to mammals?

Many of Monsanto's products have been proven to have toxicity to mammals.

Is the higher trace in any way meaningfully different?

It can be. Thus informed consumption is a good thing.

You have yet to explain why lying by omission is a good thing. You just a priori assume that the corporation has the right to sell me their product without full disclosure of what's in it. Why do they have this right?

Regardless, reduction in pesticide usage is one objective of GenMod, particularly aimed at frontier markets. There isn't any other way to achieve reduction and increase production on a large scale given pest losses (among other issues of course).

Ok, so you continue to sidestep the issue, which is labelling. I-522 is about labelling, not banning. So almost every single comment you have made is a logical fallacy known as a 'non sequitur'. Bully for those GMOs. I haven't seen a SINGLE PERSON in this entire thread argue to ban GMOs. Yet your entire argument is a rebuttal of banning GMOs.

Why are you incapable of addressing the actual topic?

No it should not be labelled because you idiots are too ignorant to meaningfully differentiate in any case.

And now we get to the crux of it. We should be kept in the dark, because our betters should make all of the decisions for us.

So what you are saying is that your right to socially engineer my life is greater than my right to make rational decisions about my own health because I might make irrational ones.

I do like it how you ignore that your bald assertion that no studies had been done is falsified.

I never said that. I said, "long-term", by which I mean a single study that takes 25 years or more. Since as you admitted, we don't really understand how the genes transfer between organisms.

As to the second: in the natural world bacterial and other genes have gotten into other organisms all by their little lonesomes.

And this gives people the right to lie to me about what they put in my food?

As you are exposed to bacteria and viruses on, in and infecting your food without any human intervention, on orders of magnitudes vastly beyond what any human modification could possibly achieve - even if this occurred on a large scale, I fail to see how your scare mongering has any rational sense at all.

Sure, this rhinovirus has been fucking with me all week.

This is about on the order of people who freak out about 'radiation' while stubbornly remaining ignorant that radiation is part of the natural world and that they are constantly exposed to radiation in the due course of merely living.

No it isn't. that's just the straw man you need to get at to get over the fact that you are a middle-management fuckwad who hates your life, who is terrifically angry that people you view as being inferior to you are in higher positions of power over you, and that you have to kiss their asses on the daily. In order to compensate for this you come on an internet message board to level abuse at people in order to feel like at least someone is beneath you. I meet your type all the time, you're a dime a fucking dozen in New York.

I typed a numeral 9 instead of a 7 in responding to your idiocy, it wasn't a bloody estimate you dim whitted git.

Fair enough. I figured that might be the case. But I thought I would teach you some manners and use it as an object lesson in how one responds to incorrectly reading what someone else writes. No doubt this lesson will be unable to penetrate your superior intellect and you'll continue to fight the hippy who hates GMOs rather than speaking to me.

Because the fucking data is there. Unless you have some actual data about agricultural productivity that contradicts me, eh?

I thought you said it was a typo. If it was a typo, why are you defending it?

But we can be sure no, this merely hand waving to attempt to distract.

Hey, turnabout is fair play.

I gave an opinion as to relative attention and investment levels, and was thinking of Ag. I stand by the opinion although it is a superficial one.

Internet billionaires created their own VC and Private Equity industry. *shrugs* People invest in markets they know. Oh wait, what am I talking about? I'm anti-business, how would I know anything about how my industry is financed? My bad.

The Biotech field is burgeoning. The old guard of big ag companies are providing most of the money. The pharmaceutical industry is providing the other lion's share not produced by Big Ag. But there is a pretty huge startup industry that is only now getting rolling. It's still the biggest biotech industry on the planet. And as more successful startups turn into big companies, more VC and PE will be provided by the people who are successful.

Enough of the Mswas show.

Enough of Lounsbury's Straw Man MsWas show anyhow.

So in conclusion, the only substantive response Lounsbury had to my query is:

I should not be allowed to manage my own health because I am not qualified to do so, therefore GMO labelling is a bad thing because I am too ignorant to make choices about which food I put into my mouth, and I need to let my betters force feed me whatever new product they put out on the market.

Thus according to Lounsbury, the people of Washington should vote no on I-522.

But the pro-science position still is, and HAS ALWAYS BEEN, that more information is better. So the pro-science position is that the people of Washington should vote yes on I-522 because having more information leads to informed choices.

[Glazer]

Originally Posted by mswas

They did, it's called "The Green Revolution" Look up Norman Borlaug.

Here is what Monsanto says about their own wheat processes. http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/wheat.aspx

Apparently wheat was a bad example as they say that no wheat biotech products are available commercially.

Corn however:

http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/wheat.aspx

Corn has plenty of biotechnology products available.

Oh shit, this is way too sane for this topic. Take your anti-science and anti-business ideology somewhere else! Biodiversity is hippy bullshit!

As has been pointed out, I'm an idiot GTard. I'm having trouble finding it. Could you point out where in those links that they are manufacturing synthetic wheat or corn. All I see are claims of improved crop production and resistance to insects and disease. I apologize for being to stupid to follow your genus reasoning.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Glazer

As has been pointed out, I'm an idiot GTard. I'm having trouble finding it. Could you point out where in those links that they are manufacturing synthetic wheat or corn. All I see are claims of improved crop production and resistance to insects and disease. I apologize for being to stupid to follow your genus reasoning.

Apologies, I posted the wheat link twice.

http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pag...-pipeline.aspx

Monsanto’s corn pipeline includes products that will help farmers produce more while reducing inputs. Our biotechnology-derived products offer farmers higher yields and better crop protection against environmental stresses and pests. Every acre of corn faces some degree of stress at some point in the growing season. Our breeding research in corn focuses on ways to mitigate these stressors through disease resistance and improving stalk and roots strength.

[Fenris]

So--wait. You think "biotechnology-derived products"=Robo-Corn or Mecha-Wheat?

Bwah?

[Steophan]

He asked for a link to synthetic wheat or corn, not GM wheat or corn. Please to be providing, or stupid-statement-retracting.

[Steophan]

Seriously, mswas, you are not actually stupid. Isn't it clear to you that you're completely out of your depth here?

[Glazer]

So where is the manufactured corn. All I see are improved crops grown in the standard manner. Just because something is developed with biotechnology doesn't make it synthetic.

Pour raw chemicals in a vat. Mix in some catalyst or process and out comes starches, sugars and proteins add vitamins and flavors. That's synthetic.

Add genes form other species to get new traits. That's high tech cross breeding. Still needing vast stretches of land. Massive use of fuel. And standard farming practices. Not exactly something you could do on a space station to feed large populations.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Seriously, mswas, you are not actually stupid. Isn't it clear to you that you're completely out of your depth here?

I'm not. It isn't so just because you declare it.

You don't get to say I said something I didn't say, refute it and then say the bullshit lie you just refuted is evidence that I don't know what i am talking about.

We got to the crux of it. You're a fucking moron. And Lounsbury is an elitist who thinks that the hoi polloi should have their consumer choices managed by their betters.

Anyone who says that biotechnology is the same as cross-breeding is out of their depth.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Glazer

So where is the manufactured corn. All I see are improved crops grown in the standard manner. Just because something is developed with biotechnology doesn't make it synthetic.

Yes, developing it with biotechnology DOES make it synthetic BY DEFINITION.

syn·thet·ic
sinˈTHetik/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a substance) made by chemical synthesis, esp. to imitate a natural product.
"synthetic rubber"

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

In chemistry, chemical synthesis is a purposeful execution of chemical reactions to obtain a product, or several products. This happens by physical and chemical manipulations usually involving one or more reactions. In modern laboratory usage, this tends to imply that the process is reproducible, reliable, and established to work in multiple laboratories.
A chemical synthesis begins by selection of compounds that are known as reagents or reactants. Various reaction types can be applied to these to synthesize the product, or an intermediate product. This requires mixing the compounds in a reaction vessel such as a chemical reactor or a simple round-bottom flask. Many reactions require some form of work-up procedure before the final product is isolated.[1] The amount of product in a chemical synthesis is the reaction yield. Typically, chemical yields are expressed as a weight in grams or as a percentage of the total theoretical quantity of product that could be produced. A side reaction is an unwanted chemical reaction taking place that diminishes the yield of the desired product.

But I'll bite. Explain to me how biotechnology doesn't use chemical synthesis in the process.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Fenris

So--wait. You think "biotechnology-derived products"=Robo-Corn or Mecha-Wheat?

Bwah?

No.

It means that it is derived from chemical synthesis that changes which genes are expressed. As I have said this entire time.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Mswas is correct here but it's pointless to argue with Steophan, clearly.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

The actual arguments are
[*]Genetically Modified is not defined in a meaningful fashion, and consumers are not actually be given useful actionable information

What is so difficult about using Monsanto's definition of 'biotechnology'?

I dispute that the term is actually as ill-defined as you make it. Monsanto AS WELL AS the Anti-GMO activists are using the terms in the same way.

[*]Identification and traceability in the logistics value chain is massively expensive and near impossible to implement cost effectively

Ok, much more reasonable argument.

[*]There is no meaningful science supporting a generalised labelling program, only non-science based 'fears'

This is just emotional manipulation on your part and not an actual argument.

[*]Inappropriate labelling will lead product to be subject to scare tactics by Activists without any science behind them (a non-abstract & non theoretical risk, witness the disinformation and actual physical attacks on Golden Rice production)

Inappropriate labelling. What about appropriate labelling? Why is it difficult to appropriately label? Do people not know where their food is sourced from? Sounds to me more like a data problem that can be resolved by better supply chain tracking than a reason not to label.

The Golden Rice example amply illustrates the dishonest nature of anti GenMod agitation, and an ample reason why labelling is not to be supported. Additionally, anyone understanding logistics chains for agriculture will understand that it is simply not a reasonable or realistic goal.

Labelling is supported in most of Europe. It's only really opposed in America.

[mswas]

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regul...oducts_eu.html

New regulations: Process-oriented
Today’s regulations are based on a different principle: All food products that make direct use of GMOs at any point in their production are subjected to labelling requirements, regardless of whether or not GM content is detectable in the end product.

This basis for labelling gives information about the use of genetic engineering, regardless of its effect on the product’s final composition.

It may be the case that physically identical products have different labelling requirements. Under this labelling regulation, it doesn’t matter if the differences become impossible to measure. The main principle is the use of a GM product at some point in the processing and production.

In many cases, enforcing these labelling regulations can no longer be done with the food itself. Protecting consumers from fraud demands a much greater investment of energy and resources than with the proof-based system.

Traceability instead of analytical proof
Specialised traceability infrastructure must be developed for the new process-oriented regulatory system.

Each stakeholder that produces or trades GM raw materials, ingredients, or foods is obligated to pass information on to subsequent stakeholders in the food supply chain.

Documentation must be retained for five years.

It must always be possible to trace the route of a GMO from the farm to the final product.

Upon authorisation, every GMO is assigned an ID number that can be used to identify it at all times.

The basis for traceability and requirements for the food industry are outlined by EU directive 1830/2003.

This basis for labelling can only offer consumers complete and reliable information when stakeholders are held tightly to accountability.

Local governments are responsible for monitoring the GMO content of products. If analytical tests on a product can’t confirm that labelling regulations have been upheld, indirect means of enforcement are needed.

In these cases, monitoring is conducted by requesting written documentation such as certificates or results of GMO testing from earlier stages in production.

Analytical tests can be used for enforcement only at early steps in the food supply chain, where food products still retain enough intact DNA to enable testing.

A seamless monitoring of the food supply chain becomes exceedingly challenging when it comes to international trade.

The new basis for regulation: Thresholds for GMO content
GM content that is below the prescribed threshold remains unlabelled, as long as it is due to an unintentional and technically unavoidable mixture.

The threshold is 0.9 percent.

The threshold only applies to GM content that has been authorised in the EU, and therefore is considered safe.

Imported GMOs that have not yet received authorisation in the EU, but have nevertheless been subjected to scientific safety evaluations in Europe, are tolerated to a threshold of 0.5 percent. As of April 2007, the threshold will be lowered to 0.0 percent.

Mixtures with GM content from GMOs that have not yet completely undergone a safety evaluation are not tolerated.

I will do my best to discipline myself to not respond to personal attacks designed to distract from the actual debate. I would like to hear what people have to say about the EU guidelines for labelling that I posted above. It's in an easy bullet point list so we can speak about the difficulties inherent in this labelling regime.

[Glazer]

Originally Posted by mswas

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

This is exactly what I looking for. So where is it?

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Glazer

This is exactly what I looking for. So where is it?

Where is what? The manufactured corn? I already posted you the product page for it where Monsanto is selling it.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

Where is what? The manufactured corn? I already posted you the product page for it where Monsanto is selling it.

No, you didn't. You linked to a page that shows where real corn, that they grow, is sold. Please link to the page where manufactured corn is sold.

GM corn is no more synthetic corn than an IVF baby is a synthetic person. Both are created with the aid of science, and probably couldn't exist without it. Both are as real - and as natural - as the ones created without that aid.

You want to know why people dislike labelling, especially the nonsense we have here in the EU where non-GM food can be required to be labelled as GM (thanks for the cite showing that, I'd actually forgotten about it), is because of people like you calling it synthetic crops, frankenstein food, and other nonsensical perjorative terms.

You want accurate labelling? Fine, but make sure you apply that to your own statements, and ditch the scaremongering about "synthetic" foods.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Steophan

No, you didn't. You linked to a page that shows where real corn, that they grow, is sold. Please link to the page where manufactured corn is sold.

How about YOU tell ME what Monsanto means by the word: "Biotechnology", why would they classify corn as 'technology' if it's just cross-bred corn?

Why would they say their corn is biotech but not their wheat? What distinction are they drawing?

[Glazer]

Don't change terms. Biotech does not equal synthetic.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Glazer

Don't change terms. Biotech does not equal synthetic.

It's not Synthetic Biology which is the creation of new designer genes. But it is still using a process of chemical synthesis.

Lets stake you on a claim here. Are you claiming that no chemical synthesis is involved in the process of gene splicing?

Are y'all really going to stand on the ground that the results of genetic engineering are not fundamentally manufactured or synthetic?

[mswas]

Anyhow, I am done with this idiotic semantic nitpick fest y'all are on.

Gene splicing is manufacturing. Quite obviously considering Monsanto patents the results of that splicing. And since it's illegal to patent naturally occurring genomes, obviously the industry agrees with me that it's manufacturing. Which was the original word I used.

I'm getting tired of teaching you guys the English language but here it goes:

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

In general, the noun synthesis (from the ancient Greek σύνθεσις, σύν "with" and θέσις "placing") refers to a combination of two or more entities that together form something new; alternately, it refers to the creating of something by artificial means. The corresponding verb, to synthesize (or synthesise), means to make or form a synthesis.

So even if you want to make a nitpick about chemical synthesis, even if you want to make a nitpick about synthetic biology, I have used the term fucking correctly every time and I will not respond to another dumbass tard nitpick on the word 'synthetic'.

If you take a gene sequence from one organism and splice it into a gene sequence of another organism that is a fucking example of goddamn synthesis.

I will not be lectured about being anti-science by someone who is too stupid to use the word synthesis in a fucking sentence.

</rant>

[Steophan]

Any plants or seeds created in the lab are, arguably, synthetic. My understanding is that neither Monsanto nor anyone else are selling for consumption any lab created plants, but ones grown naturally.

The gene, or the original seed, may have been synthesised. The food that comes to your table, or the plant you grow, isn't.

Not synthesised. Not manufactured. Grown. Naturally. Just like we've been doing for millennia, with the same positives and negatives of introducing any variant species into an ecosystem. It's clear you have no understanding of the terminology or of the science. Or, by the sound of it, of actually growing a plant. Do you really think that GM crops are all modified in a lab before they reach you?

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by mswas

No.

It means that it is derived from chemical synthesis that changes which genes are expressed. As I have said this entire time.

Sooo....if I mixed sodium and chloride* together and made NaCl, I wouldn't have made "salt", I'd have made "synthetic, artificial, robot-salt"? Or "Salt-like inorganic crystals manufactured in a laboratory"?







*I think--if I've got the chemicals wrong, don't be a Durper and pretend you don't understand the bigger point.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Sooo....if I mixed sodium and chloride* together and made NaCl, I wouldn't have made "salt", I'd have made "synthetic, artificial, robot-salt"? Or "Salt-like inorganic crystals manufactured in a laboratory"?



*I think--if I've got the chemicals wrong, don't be a Durper and pretend you don't understand the bigger point.

Why do you ask me not to do exactly what you're doing?

I am done with this idiotic hijack. Biotech is manufactured, it's artificial, it's synthetic. If you think those words are inappropriate, you're wrong, so please find exception with them so I can ignore you.

I never once used the word 'robot'.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Steophan

It's clear you have no understanding of the terminology or of the science.

It's pretty clear, but about you.

You're a fucking idiot. The seed is manufactured but the plant is grown. What a moron.

You're on ignore now. You haven't said two intelligent things in the entire time I've known you. It's a waste of my time to even recognize that you exist.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

Biotech is manufactured, it's artificial, it's synthetic.

None of this is actually true. They are grown naturally. Do you really think GM crops are manufactured in a lab, not grown in a field?

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

It's pretty clear, but about you.

You're a fucking idiot. The seed is manufactured but the plant is grown. What a moron.

You're on ignore now. You haven't said two intelligent things in the entire time I've known you. It's a waste of my time to even recognize that you exist.

So, you're agreeing with me, calling me a moron, and putting me on ignore because of it?

There's something really rather wrong with you...

[Glazer]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Sooo....if I mixed sodium and chloride* together and made NaCl, I wouldn't have made "salt", I'd have made "synthetic, artificial, robot-salt"? Or "Salt-like inorganic crystals manufactured in a laboratory"?







*I think--if I've got the chemicals wrong, don't be a Durper and pretend you don't understand the bigger point.

You got the chemicals right but you need to do more than just mix them. The bold part is exactly what you would have. Except for the like part it would be identical to natural salt aside from trace elements.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

Mswas is correct here but it's pointless to argue with Steophan, clearly.

No actually he is entirely wrong.

There are no synthetic crops in the market as that is beyond the capacity of any current science.

At best some limited genetic modifications by insertion - a process that we recently discovered can actually happen naturally - of genes / traits into a genome.

The result is no more "synthetic" than an in-vitro baby is synthetic. Seeds are grown entirely 'naturally' and the plants are grown as naturally as any crop plant that was genetically modified by traditional methods (i.e. all the crops grown except in the most primitive of circumstances).

The ill-informed and often dishonest scare mongering around this is actively harmful and is pure know-nothingism.

The example of the Golden Rice (which would be under these moronic demarches be labelled as scary GMO) is the perfect example.

To quote from the NYT arty on this

At stake, they say, is not just the future of biofortified rice but also a rational means to evaluate a technology whose potential to improve nutrition in developing countries, and developed ones, may otherwise go unrealized.

“There’s so much misinformation floating around about G.M.O.’s that is taken as fact by people,” said Michael D. Purugganan, a professor of genomics and biology and the dean for science at New York University, who sought to calm health-risk concerns in a primer on GMA News Online, a media outlet in the Philippines: “The genes they inserted to make the vitamin are not some weird manufactured material,” he wrote, “but are also found in squash, carrots and melons.”

Mr. Purugganan, who studies plant evolution, does not work on genetically engineered crops, and until recently had not participated in the public debates over the risks and benefits of G.M.O.’s. But having been raised in a middle-class family in Manila, he felt compelled to weigh in on Golden Rice. “A lot of the criticism of G.M.O.’s in the Western world suffers from a lack of understanding of how really dire the situation is in developing countries,” he said.

Most criticism of GenMod is pure ill-informed emotional reaction and ignorant fear.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

No actually he is entirely wrong.

There are no synthetic crops in the market as that is beyond the capacity of any current science.

At best some limited genetic modifications by insertion - a process that we recently discovered can actually happen naturally - of genes / traits into a genome.

The result is no more "synthetic" than an in-vitro baby is synthetic. Seeds are grown entirely 'naturally' and the plants are grown as naturally as any crop plant that was genetically modified by traditional methods (i.e. all the crops grown except in the most primitive of circumstances).

I already posted the definition of the term, 'synthesis' so inserting genes from one organism into another is synthesis, by definition.

You are actually incorrect here. Artificial insemination with sperm from a man into the ovum of a woman is hardly the same thing as inserting the genes from a bacterium into a seed of corn.

By Lounsbury's dumbass logic. Because arches occur naturally. Therefore these arches are not artificial.

Artificial means MAN MADE. So if man inserted the genes into the seed then it is FUCKING ARTIFICIAL. Just as IVF is known as 'artificial insemination'.

And calling people idiots in every single post you ever make is scaremongering.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

Mswas is correct here but it's pointless to argue with Steophan, clearly.

It's only pointless to argue with me if all you have is emotion and rhetoric, such as mswas. If you have facts and/or reason, hopefully I can learn something from you.

[mswas]

Lounsbury said that it would be impossible to implement a labelling regime. I posted about how they are doing it in Europe with a list of exactly how they are going about implementing it.

Not a single person even responded to that post.

Apparently calling people idiots is the real goal.

Idiots.

Just another example of people saying that something that is being successfully implemented all over the world is impossible.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

Lounsbury said that it would be impossible to implement a labelling regime. I posted about how they are doing it in Europe with a list of exactly how they are going about implementing it.

Not a single person even responded to that post.

Apparently calling people idiots is the real goal.

Idiots.

Just another example of people saying that something that is being successfully implemented all over the world is impossible.

I responded to it, and thanked you for posting it. It's a shame you won't read this, but enjoy the persecution fantasy.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Because people are ignorant we must keep them ignorant.

...

[mswas]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHA This is hysterical.

The article that Lounsbury posts about Golden Rice states that the invention of Golden Rice was a propaganda tool in the first place.

OMG. He used a cite that actually works against his own position.

THe article states both that it's not harmful and also that the first iteration of it did not provide a meaningful amount of beta carotene anyway.

So basically the idea of this rice was created to get developing nations to accept GMOs legally so that later on corporations can come in and control the food supply.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA What a genius middle-manager that guy is!

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by mswas

Lounsbury said that it would be impossible to implement a labelling regime. I posted about how they are doing it in Europe with a list of exactly how they are going about implementing it.

And everything gets the label, by that standard, unless they can prove they don't. If everything is labeled, your label becomes meaningless.

Because you are an idiot.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Argyle Sock

And everything gets the label, by that standard. If everything is labeled, your label becomes meaningless.

Hi Steophan, and no, every product is labelled with nutritional information and it's not meaningless.

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by mswas

Hi Steophan, and no, every product is labelled with nutritional information and it's not meaningless.

Fuck you, idiot cunt. You Really are an idiot, aren't you. There's a good dog....

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Argyle Sock

Fuck you, idiot cunt. You Really are an idiot, aren't you. There's a good dog....

Congratulations on saying something intelligible Steophan.

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by mswas

Congratulations on saying something intelligible Steophan.

You really are tedious. And an idiot. And a troll. Bite me.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Argyle Sock

You really are tedious. And an idiot. And a troll. Bite me.

Thank you Steophan.

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by mswas

Thank you Steophan.

You're welcome, shithead.

[Glazer]

Hey Sock long time no see.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Argyle Sock

You're welcome, shithead.

It's pronounced Shuh-thayd.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

Congratulations on saying something intelligible Steophan.

What a silly man you are. I doubt you'll read this, but anyone else will know that Argyle isn't me, and is a long term poster on this board under that name.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by mswas

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHA This is hysterical.

Only insofar as it demonsrates either your profound stupidity or your lack of honesty. Or both I suppose.

The article that Lounsbury posts about Golden Rice states that the invention of Golden Rice was a propaganda tool in the first place.

Funny this is a fine illustration of your either distorted mind or your dishonesty.

In fact, the article says that it is the accusation of far left anti-market groups, not a fact. In fact it is a project sponsored by a very respected a respected sector NGO, as stated in the actual text:

Not owned by any company, Golden Rice is being developed by a nonprofit group called the International Rice Research Institute with the aim of providing a new source of vitamin A to people both in the Philippines, where most households get most of their calories from rice, and eventually in many other places in a world where rice is eaten every day by half the population. Lack of the vital nutrient causes blindness in a quarter-million to a half-million children each year. It affects millions of people in Asia and Africa and so weakens the immune system that some two million die each year of diseases they would otherwise survive.

Mswas' fundamental dishonesty is to apparently take this paragraph:

In a 2001 article, “The Great Yellow Hype,” the author Michael Pollan, a critic of industrial agriculture, suggested that it might have been developed to “win an argument rather than solve a public-health problem.” He cited biotechnology industry advertisements that featured the virtues of the rice, which at the time had to be ingested in large quantities to deliver a meaningful dose of vitamin A.

Not quoted obviously given its weakness, outdated partisan nature.

OMG. He used a cite that actually works against his own position.

Only in your bizarro world, although this does amply illustrate why interaction with you is ultimately pointless.

So basically the idea of this rice was created to get developing nations to accept GMOs legally so that later on corporations can come in and control the food supply.

And here we have a clear view of how Mswas works: either he can't read for comprehension or this was deliberate dishonesty. The article says not such thing (nor its associated articles), but rather it is the assertions of "activists" without any particular factual basis.

Of course empty headed credence to such claims explains much of his posting and world view.

That he thought this was a gotcha perhaps leads to further support to the blinkered ideologue explanation than actual full-out dishonesty.