Grow them fast?

[TMF]

Yes, my BS meter starts going off when it detects emotion, rhetoric, doomsday claims without citing studies, conspiracy theory pop up ads, the word "homeopathic", referencing known activist organizations with an agenda against the very thing they are "objectively" reporting on... stuff like that.

 

I went down a rabbit hole the other day off of an article that referenced very "official" sounding groups who seemed to be authorities on the subject, only to research those groups to find out they are the quacks of their industry and house the same lunatics who claim you shouldn't vaccinate your kids and that polio never existed.

 

Now, to reference real stuff, I was just reading an article regarding GM corn which was designed to resist root worms, and since the industry didn't properly police itself (maybe due to profits) and the EPA didn't regulate it to the extent they should have (either due to lobbying or because they didn't want to piss off the farmers) there are now root worms that are resistant to the GM corn and we may have some real problems moving forward in regard to both crops being compromised and a requirement to use more insecticides, which was the primary reason for pushing the GM corn in the first place... to avoid using so many insecticides.

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/

 

There are real facts in there, and it is obviously one-sided since it did not take comments from the EPA, AG industry reps or the GM corn industry reps.  But still, it isn't an emotionally based article.  These are the things that I can digest.  I can't digest emotion and take it seriously.

[Oh Shoot]

 . God put creatures here for us to eat as they are and when you mess with that delicate cycle then nothing good will come of it ..

 

Various of our current domestic animals have been selectively bred for 20,000 years or more to get to their current state. We'd only vaguely recognize a pig or cow from even as recent as 8,000 BCE. So "messing" with them is certainly nothing new.

 

- OS

Edited March 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Smith]

Various domestic animals have been selectively bred for 20,000 years or more to get to their current state. We'd only vaguely recognize a pig or cow from 8,000 BCE. So "messing" with them is certainly nothing new.

 

- OS

There is a difference in selective breeding and genetic altering a breed. Genetic altering, IMO, takes the natural casual effects that can not be seen or known until after the fact and throws them out the window. Selective breeding allows for the natural development of the unknown factors to develop and evolve with the natural growth of the animal or crop. Thus allowing the breeder to know what works and what doesn't as well as the unforeseen benefits or negatives. Some breeding ideas seemed great until they got the results and those breeds are now gone. 

 

IMO, it is those unknown factors that is what makes genetic altering a problem. It's not that the process that is bad but scientist can not account for all the factors that take place when you alter a single chromosome or gene in a plant or animal.

 

Similar to how they couldn't figure out why the test tube animals and plants they grow early on could not sustain their life cycle in a normal or healthy pattern ... ala  Dolly the Sheep.

[TMF]

Various of our current domestic animals have been selectively bred for 20,000 years or more to get to their current state. We'd only vaguely recognize a pig or cow from even as recent as 8,000 BCE. So "messing" with them is certainly nothing new.

 

- OS

 

Yep, and if you really want to look at genetically altered plants, look at the history of wine grapes.  Just a few hundred years ago they had a near wipeout of crop which required them to splice in grape vines from the new world into the old world vines.  Not much different than the way they would do it now, except for the way they did it was less precise and with mixed results. 

[Troutburger]

Any objective proof?  Scientific studies or other data that reaches such conclusions?

 

I'm not trying to be an arse, I'd just like to see some data that amounts to more than hand waving followed by unsupported conclusions.  I'm nerdy like that. 

Objective proof that you are an arse? ...lol. Just kidding. 

 

All joking aside, most americans consume GMO's on a daily basis without even knowing it. Would the FDA ever admit that there are negatives associated with GMO's, of course not. 

 

Research suggests that GMO's promote food allergies and antibiotic resistance.

 

Will it make your kids Autistic and give your granny cancer? 

 

The truth of the matter is no one really knows the potential and real side effects.  I do know more and more countries are banning GMO's and that suggests that their science knows something ours does not.  I also know that food allergies, antibiotic resistant bugs, cancer, and autism are on the rise. And you are what you eat. 

[bersaguy]

Sure glad I don't like Salmon anyway so no worried about it...............jmho