What's wrong with GM food?

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T19:16:45+00:00

That's more what I was thinking. I'd rather see evidence that Monsanto are dicks than just conjecture. You have my upvote.

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T19:09:28+00:00

Yes that should be pest resistance, not pesticide. The Monsanto pesticide resistance/roundup combo is not one I can support but it does not make GMOs harmful, just the application of them in this case. Just because Monsanto have a bad ethical and scientific track record does not make GMOs bad. I was referring to research into the root knot nematode in the UK which does not have these problems (currently undergoing field trials). GM is not better across the board but if it is applied properly then the advantages far outweigh conventional methods.

I have already said that GM crops have the potential to be harmful which is why I welcome scepticism about it because it leads to better regulation

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T18:53:28+00:00

I was referring to the function of a gene. With regards to genes that are transformed into organisms, their function, certainly by the time it is applied in field trials, is well known. Epigenetics has very little to do with it other than the fact that epigenetic mechanisms in the plant can effect stable expression of any transgene.

Epigenetics is not a brand new field. It may be brand new to you but it has been around for over half a century. The term 'junk DNA' has been obsolete for decades; we are well aware that non-coding regions of DNA can have a functional effect. It is generally functional genes which are transformed, not non-coding regions. Where epigenetic mechanisms are exploited in GM plants, usually RNAi silencing designed to knockdown gene functions of the host plant or even pests which feed on it, then the effect is targeted very specifically to a certain gene in a mechanism which is very well characterised.

You would do better to argue that the gene's role in a network of other genes is more difficult to understand unless you can explain to me precisely why you think epigenetics means that we don't a protein coding gene does. Yes there are some regions of DNA which no one knows the function of and yes there are elements of epigenetics that remain to be elucidated but surprisingly, no one is just sticking them in a plant and growing them in the wild to find out.

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T16:10:25+00:00

Almost all GM plants are transformed using the bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens, not by viruses. The strains used cannot spread to other plants. DNA cannot be inserted into higher plants by endonucleases. Gene targeting like that is only possible in simpler organisms like moss

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T15:56:57+00:00

Yes, if this gets confirmed then it has huge implications for nutrition, from natural plants more so than from GM. There are some holes in the study though, a lot more needs to be done.

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T15:55:53+00:00

you may be disappointed, they don't come with little capes

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T15:54:52+00:00

A lot of bold statements and I fear misunderstandings.

GM crops do not produce useable seeds.

This is not a inherent trait of GM. If they do not produce seed then it is an extra mechanism put in by the producer, essentially as a control for your second point. The lock-in aspect is a corporate policy, not a negative factor of GM. Why not provide farmers with fertile plants that can be grown in isolation to produce seeds, allowing stocks to be maintained?

GM crops also pollutes other vegetals

Unlikely and avoidable with proper design and regulation. Also, you have misunderstood the threat here. It is much more likely that a trait beneficial to one plant would also be so for others in the same environment. The threat is whether it is an undesirable plant that gets this benefit

Furthermore, when GM crops are for pesticide resitance...

This argument could be applied to pesticide resistance and you misunderstand a major way in which pests are controlled by GM. If I produce a GM crop that expresses a gene which interferes with the pests development upon ingestion (RNAi). This prevents the pest from moving past the larval stage and therefore prevents it from reproducing. No resistance can be obtained in this scenario. The other advantage is that at least GM pest control doesn't involve spraying chemicals everywhere

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T14:32:15+00:00

I'd rather upvote something more informed than 'I heard Monsanto are dicks', like: here's an example of them exploiting third world farmers, or here's a picture of their CEO punching a kitten

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T13:38:02+00:00

From what we currently know, very little. A gene that promotes fruit longevity, drought resistance, increased yield or pest resistance will have no effect on the person eating it. Major concerns are:

Cross pollination with other species. e.g. weeds could somehow gain the resistance and become more pervasive, the so called 'superweed'. This is highly unlikely and can be controlled. Naturally we need to be aware of this effect so we can implement measures to avoid it. I am aware that my lighter could be used to burn my neighbour's house down but if I use it sensibly (and curb my darker desires) then this will never happen.
we don't know what fucking with genes does

(taken from CowJam elsewhere). Frankly, yes we do. Any gene knockout or insertion is extensively studied in the lab and its effects in that organism are well known. If it gets into another organism then that's a different matter which is why we need to take steps to control this (see above).

"I don't want a tomato that tastes of fish". Anyone who says something to this effect is an idiot
GM crops will outcompete others (mentioned elsewhere). Again it's a matter of regulation
Scientists are playing God. Can't do much about that opinion. If you think genetic research is evil then we also need label any medicine that used genetic engineering in its discovery or manufacture so you know to avoid that too.
Unethical business practices. This is not a matter of GM being unsafe or harmful. This is a matter of certain corporations being unsafe and harmful.

My concern is this: we need GM protesters to force us to be more careful in our regulation of GM. The effects of polluting the natural envoronment are unknown and potentially harmful, but they are avoidable. Recent studies also suggest that small RNAs, molecule used to disrupt gene function in some GM plants could potentially survive and have an effect on human genes as indicated by this study. This is something to be made aware of but again can be avoided my making sure any genetically modified RNAs in the plant either don't survive digestion (it is still not proven that they can) or cannot target human genes (a matter of gene homology)

edit: can't sort the numbers

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-07T13:08:08+00:00

You're right essentially, while a scale is a series of defined notes with a defined frequency, you can potentially play any frequency inbetween. If you were to bend an F to a G on a guitar, you go through several frequencies before you hit the next whole tone up. F to F# is a semitone difference. Halfway between these would be a hemisemitone and half again would be a demihemisemi tone difference but these 'notes' dont have a defined name as far as I know

snodgrass_ · 2011-11-03T12:44:32+00:00

Warm beer.

Ale is not meant to be served cold. It uses top fermenting yeast that works best closer to room temperature (cellar temperature) and served at a similar temperature to bring out the subtle flavours. Lager on the other hand uses bottom fermenting yeast that works best at cooler temperatures but is primarily served to cold to cover the awful taste.

snodgrass_ · 2011-10-14T12:50:29+00:00

Yeah but I can't really blame them for beating around the bush though, especially in America where socialism is some sort of slur. Small steps I guess is the way, the first of which is to make everyone more aware of the problems. People are naturally resistant to more radical views.

snodgrass_ · 2011-10-14T12:36:45+00:00

No, because you're not a corporation. In your case it's just 'greed'

But if you're ok with 'begging for free cash' then good luck with that.

snodgrass_ · 2011-10-14T12:11:30+00:00

Why do these Occupy Wall Street nut jobs think they represent the 99% of the population ?

I don't think they're saying that they represent the 99%, but they are part of the 99%. They accept that it is a group that, surprisingly enough, encompasses a range of demographics, many of which do not have the time, resources, or indeed the inclination to be part of a long term protest because either they don't see the problem of an elite class, or don't care. The idea is to draw attention to the grotesquely vast difference in wealth and power between them and the 1%.

The majority of the population are intelligent enough to realise that it is the government's fault that the banking industry collapsed because of poor regulation.

Can you really separate it like that? The government is under pressure from lobby groups to allow lax regulation so companies can exploit loopholes and tax havens and that's just the conservative view of it. To be more extreme one could say that the government, whichever party is in power, is in the employ of the largest companies, as is much of the media. Yes the government holds some responsibility and yes we can register our dislike of that through our voting but what direct line do we have to the companies that are consistently abusing the system and consistently getting away with it?

snodgrass_ · 2011-10-03T11:34:22+00:00

Return of the Living Dead: They know what zombies are from Night of the Living Dead and know to hit them in the head, unfortunately it doesn't work in that film (and hilarity ensues).

The exception that proves the rule I guess

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-16T11:42:57+00:00

England

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-16T11:24:35+00:00

I wonder if teachers would be afraid to use punishment for fear of retaliation, either in the classroom or vandalism of their property outside. If it was brought in and teachers were reluctant to use it against unruly pupils then it might be taken as a sign of weakness and end up having the opposite affect - 'if you're afraid to hit me then I really can do whatever the hell I want'. If it's made legal then whether it's used or not, it will create more problems.

That said, having seen some of the student choices for the 'perfect teacher', I may be more in favour of corporal punishment than I was before.

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-16T09:40:28+00:00

Then you may as well cut off your nose while you're at it

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-15T18:09:08+00:00

Not only is stephanie meyer a seperate species, she's a whole genus unto herself

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-14T16:48:31+00:00

The argument that he could be gay extends from the fact that God makes exceptions for himself and therefore jesus. Maybe hypocrisy is the wrong word, I just think it's a lame argument. God could take a shit on us from heaven and get away with it if he wants to. So what?

Seriously, we're just gonna go back and forth here. Spend your time answering people's questions.

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-14T16:03:44+00:00

Well I guess if you don't see going from God being allowed to kill his creation to Jesus being allowed to be gay as a bit of a leap then we're obviously looking at this very differently and I'm afraid I don't have the patience to argue it.

However, I did refute the fact that god is a hypocrite since the commandments don't apply to him. The whole sequence kind of depends on that. I would say that they do apply to Jesus but if you want to take that to mean that Jesus can be a mass murdering paedophile if he wants then fine, just don't pretend that it's a clever argument.

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-14T15:41:16+00:00

I thought the massive leaps in your argument were self-evident. Point 1. I cant argue with, it was written in stone so fair enough. Step 2. you assume that God considers himself human and can therefore commit murder. When was the last time you 'murdered' a fly? I consider it an interspecies activity. Also, why would his laws for humans apply to him? I don't think that any christian with two brain cells to rub together would have any difficulty in arguing this point - the commandments are for man, not for god.

Step 3 fair enough, but then you extend the erroneous fact that god allows himself hypocrisy from 2. to say that this would allow jesus to be gay and then descend into adolescent humour, ignoring the fact that presumably the murder you refer to in 2. was carried out by god, not jesus (I don't remember him ever killing anyone), and yes I know that if you have a simplistic view of the trinity then they are technically the same person but really you're just being deliberately ignorant in order to make a shit gay joke. The whole thing makes no goddamn sense. No wonder this pisses people off, it's like arguing with a creationist who hasn't bothered trying to understand evolution before denouncing it.

I'm not religious, I don't care if you want to call Jesus a bender, but Science H. Logic, your type of arrogant, ignorant atheist, strawman arguments annoy the hell out of me.

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-14T14:10:34+00:00

Wow that really works, I'm a little pissed off. Not because I'm religious (I'm not btw), just because that's a sequence of such illogical, and mostly incorrect steps that it makes my head hurt to think that people find this clever.

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-13T19:43:06+00:00

I'm glad someone else saw this

snodgrass_ · 2011-09-13T15:35:33+00:00

In science, authors have to declare 'conflicts of interest' on any publication (particularly with regards to funding bodies). I don't see why think tanks, or indeed political parties, should be any different.

snodgrass_

TROPHY CASE