Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 2, 2021, 8:07 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
#11
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
Yes, very different. The principles used and effect achieved are the same (but one could argue that genetic engineering drastically reduces the "turnover time"). In the case of roundup ready corn - we could have done this without genetic engineering (we didn't realize that then). Basically, the gene that codes for EPSPS(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPSP_synthase) has been replaced in the corn with a similar gene from bacterium - which allows the EPSPS to function normally in the presence of glyphosate (the active ingredient in roundup) through horizontal transfer(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer)

Other GM crops have different situations. In the case of RRCorn no new proteins are expressed. In some GMOs - it's a whole different ballgame. Bt crops are in a league of their own (pesticide producing crops).
It's bad for the rest of the world when americans are paid so little they can only afford chocolate mined by child slaves and clothes made in overseas sweatshops. - Robyn Pennacchia
Reply
#12
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
Anti Monsanto should not mean anti GMO.
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#13
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
Seems hard to separate the two, my dear.


http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/b...ection-act

( Make sure to play both parts of the video.)

Perhaps it is merely my natural cynicism shining through but why does a company need to bribe congressmen to protect it from being sued....unless it knows it deserves to be sued?
Reply
#14
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
If you don't do anything and everything you can to protect your interests you are not operating in the best interests of your business. If you have some conflict - you could always resign ...but you'll simply be replaced. Whether or not you've done anything to "deserve being sued" doesn't factor in. The operative here is minimizing risk and exposure in the event that you -do- do something. They've done plenty, btw.

Genetic modification is a tool, a process. Monsanto is a business with a massive interest in that process.
It's bad for the rest of the world when americans are paid so little they can only afford chocolate mined by child slaves and clothes made in overseas sweatshops. - Robyn Pennacchia
Reply
#15
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
(June 1, 2013 at 6:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Seems hard to separate the two, my dear.

That's what is so infuriating about Monsanto. GMO crops could be a boon to humanity if they were regulated and governed responsibly. Instead, a single company has taken the reins, done a lot which is irresponsible and probably immoral (patenting crops? who the fuck even), and now people think of Monsanto and bad food crops the way people think of Xerox and copiers. It's a terrible shame.
Reply
#16
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
That's not the fault of GMO tech, Min - merely the fight between Monsanto and the fucknuts who can't separate their corporate hate and their science illiteracy from a Very Good Thing.
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#17
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
When one lie is detected a thousand are suspected, Summer. Human nature.
Reply
#18
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
Too fucking bad for the hippies.
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#19
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
Doesn't help that Monsanto, in the area of GMO food, owns a tonne of the patents.

When you are anti-Monsanto, you are indirectly anti-GMO-that-Monsanto-makes.

Unless the patents were sold to a more scrupulous organization.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Reply
#20
RE: Jane Goodall is now anti-GMO [rolling eyes]
(June 1, 2013 at 10:48 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: When you are anti-Monsanto, you are indirectly anti-GMO-that-Monsanto-makes.

I am only anti-GMO-that-Monsanto-makes. I can't stress enough that people really need to separate one from the other in their heads. It may eventually be the difference between a lot of people eating or starving.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  "GMO Causes Cancer" Study thesummerqueen 4 1609 October 12, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Last Post: thesummerqueen
  GMO Labeling and "The China Scenario" thesummerqueen 2 1856 May 23, 2012 at 2:47 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  GMO Toxins and Pregnant Women thesummerqueen 28 7782 December 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The GMO Thread thesummerqueen 34 5639 August 16, 2011 at 9:06 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  GMO Bluegrass The Grand Nudger 4 2415 July 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Last Post: fr0d0



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)