DescentBB

http://rt.com/usa/211907-monsanto-oregon-gmo-recount/

So... how's that recount going????


... I thought so...

I can't even determine what the point of this article is. First, RT, which is a god awful "news source." At the time of this post, the first two paragraphs are exactly the same. Hey RT, proofread much?

The article can't even get it's story straight. First it says the observers were illegal, then it quotes one county clerk who said, "When I looked into it with our legal counsel we found it was fine to allow them in the room." And, they are just observers -- they can't change a vote. So who cares?

Besides, labeling everything with GMO stickers will do nothing. California has signs everywhere that says "such-and-such" causes cancer but absolutely no one pays attention to them. It just becomes background noise, and so too would GMO labels. Is that what you anti-GMO people want? Actually, I would love to have GMO's labeled because I would only eat GMO food if I could! (Ignoring the fact EVRY food we eat is genetically modified and has been for thousands of years.)

hoo boy.. if it isn't stupid poli-hate, it's anti-GMO bull★■◆●.

The fact is, we've been eating GMO foods for a very very long time. Those bananas you eat? GMO. That beef and chicken you eat? GMO. Even the carrots, peppers, tomatoes and a whole medley of foods you eat are GMO.

That's the effect of artificial selection. it modifies genetic strains that normally wouldn't occur because humanity found certain traits to be beneficial to us. The only difference is -- the technique has changed.

If you think we're wrong, go out anywhere in the world and find us a naturally-occurring, wild dairy cow. Or a wild chicken. Or a wild banana. Or even a wild carrot

Ferno wrote:The only difference is -- the technique has changed.

That's a very counter-intuitive and misleading statement, Ferno. This last year I did some reading about deriving seeds from vegetables and fruit with the goal of growing my own food and maintaining my own seed supply. During the course of this, and purchasing starter seeds, I got a glimpse at just how far our vegetables and fruits have come. They are a wealth developed across generations, and their development involved selective growing (varieties obtained using cross-pollination and other such methods usually require propagation outside of the normal seed cycle). I am talking about "heirloom" seeds--seeds that can propagate the parent plant, and themselves yield seed to do the same again.

Incidentally I also watched an interesting documentary on genetic modification (in favor of genetic modification), which in my mind cannot be compared to the natural techniques. Genetic Modification is not by any means a precise science. DNA is not changed by targeting various switches and turning them on or off, but by bombarding the area they desire to effect, and through many, many iterations checking for the change they are looking for. In my mind this kind of shotgun approach means that there are things being changed which they are not focused on, and so long as these other changes are not obvious in their effects they are not a concern--acceptable collateral damage.

You call splicing in a gene “bombarding the area they desire to effect”.

Ok

No, dumbass, they call bombarding an area until you get what you want "splicing in a gene".

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Genetic Modification is not by any means a precise science.

It's so easy you can do it in your garage!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:In my mind this kind of shotgun approach means that there are things being changed which they are not focused on, and so long as these other changes are not obvious in their effects they are not a concern--acceptable collateral damage.

Except these modified plants go through literally a decade or more of testing before they get released for consumption. Everything is a concern. Besides, after dozens of generations, any of this "collateral damage" to the genes would be no different than the natural mutation rate.

Let's put it this way: If it is a concern to you, it is a concern to the scientists who make this stuff and the agencies who regulate it, and naturally a concern of the companies who sell it because the slightest slip-up will result in a devastating lawsuit that destroys the business.

Ok, I found the source video, and I think I was wrong. It is a very random process taking place in the video, but that random process does not specifically apply to the practice of splicing itself, which the video does not delve into. I take back my "dumbass" shot. Sorry Spidey.

[youtube]TmozFFm9eIA[/youtube]
Beginning at 43:43, and specifically at about 49:00

Duper wrote:http://rt.com/usa/211907-monsanto-oregon-gmo-recount/

So... how's that recount going????


... I thought so...

Figures. I'm not surprised though. The measure initially failed by 812 votes out of 1.5 million ballots. I guess Monsanto wants to make sure it stays failed. Benton county actually gained a several "yes" votes for the measure after the recount though.

tunnelcat wrote:

Duper wrote:http://rt.com/usa/211907-monsanto-oregon-gmo-recount/

So... how's that recount going????


... I thought so...

Figures. I'm not surprised though. The measure initially failed by 812 votes out of 1.5 million ballots. I guess Monsanto wants to make sure it stays failed. Benton county actually gained a several "yes" votes for the measure after the recount though.

So did you drop a couple extra in!

seriously though, I get tired of this crap. Even still, I thought the rest of us Oregonians would like to know what's going on. I'd lost track of it. Also, it seems that a lot of the country likes to look at us for guidance. iieeckk...

Duper wrote:Also, it seems that a lot of the country likes to look at us for guidance.

lolwut? since when? this is news to me and I've lived in several states over the past 5 years.

Duper wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Duper wrote:http://rt.com/usa/211907-monsanto-oregon-gmo-recount/

So... how's that recount going????


... I thought so...

Figures. I'm not surprised though. The measure initially failed by 812 votes out of 1.5 million ballots. I guess Monsanto wants to make sure it stays failed. Benton county actually gained a several "yes" votes for the measure after the recount though.

So did you drop a couple extra in!

seriously though, I get tired of this crap. Even still, I thought the rest of us Oregonians would like to know what's going on. I'd lost track of it. Also, it seems that a lot of the country likes to look at us for guidance. iieeckk...

No, I don't have the money and influence that Monsanto has, but I did vote for it. Bastards. I don't hear any Republicans whining about Monsanto tampering with the vote either. Silent as a church. I also haven't read anything about this in our local paper or the Oregonian. What gives? I'd think that this BS would be front page stuff and get most liberal Oregonians fighting mad.

By the way, the rest of the country doesn't look to us for guidance, they look to us to see what nutty things were doing or voting for, then they're secretly following us and claiming it was their idea when they like it.

we don't look to you all for guidance, so much as view you as a sort of crazy little laboratory of odd ideas. When one works, we might adopt it, but we'll gladly wait and see you all test it for us.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Ferno wrote:The only difference is -- the technique has changed.

That's a very counter-intuitive and misleading statement, Ferno. This last year I did some reading about deriving seeds from vegetables and fruit with the goal of growing my own food and maintaining my own seed supply. During the course of this, and purchasing starter seeds, I got a glimpse at just how far our vegetables and fruits have come. They are a wealth developed across generations, and their development involved selective growing (varieties obtained using cross-pollination and other such methods usually require propagation outside of the normal seed cycle). I am talking about "heirloom" seeds--seeds that can propagate the parent plant, and themselves yield seed to do the same again.

Incidentally I also watched an interesting documentary on genetic modification (in favor of genetic modification), which in my mind cannot be compared to the natural techniques. Genetic Modification is not by any means a precise science. DNA is not changed by targeting various switches and turning them on or off, but by bombarding the area they desire to effect, and through many, many iterations checking for the change they are looking for. In my mind this kind of shotgun approach means that there are things being changed which they are not focused on, and so long as these other changes are not obvious in their effects they are not a concern--acceptable collateral damage.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

I think you've understated it badly. It's a whole new ballgame with new horizons and new risks. I think anytime we start depending solely on the creations of people who are by nature short-sighted it tends to end badly. I also think centralizing our food supply is a mistake, and that is also the goal and result of such specialized products.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think anytime we start depending solely on the creations of people who are by nature short-sighted it tends to end badly.

I'm going to assume by "short-sighted" you mean corporations who are out to turn quick profits. I haven't thought about how that applies to agribusiness so I'm not going to comment about it. Regardless, I am stuck in the middle of the GMO debate because on one hand I think GMOs are great, but on the other I'm strictly against gene patents. If I were conspiracy-minded I would say the whole GMO scare is a brilliant propaganda campaign to fight agricultural companies who put profits over people, even though the product itself is safe (not only safe, but valuable enough to exert this much legal control over).

Luckily there is the Open-Source Seed Initiative. Hopefully it takes off.http://www.opensourceseedinitiative.org ... on-vision/. N

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think you've understated it badly. It's a whole new ballgame with new horizons and new risks. I think anytime we start depending solely on the creations of people who are by nature short-sighted it tends to end badly. I also think centralizing our food supply is a mistake, and that is also the goal and result of such specialized products.

I both agree and disagree.

In disagreement: I think you give people too much credit when you characterize GMO's as human creations. I think, more along Ferno's line of thinking, that we're simply finding ways to accelerate age-old selective breeding/hybridizing methods.

In agreement: I think our focus on better taste/yield at the cost of self-reproduction (because that's what pays) has potential to create a crash if we lose the ability to keep the sterile organisms going (or lose the ability to produce more high-yield organisms). So, my fear is really about depending too heavily on something that's not sustainable - where the "old" methods might have shown the lack of sustainability before we managed to get as far into the dependence process.

By the way, if you look at it from the sustainability angle that I just presented, GMO's are only one of many sustainability concerns that we should have.

Any doctor will tell you that preservatives, artificial colors, flavor enhancers, etc. much more dangerous to health than GMO agricultural products.

snoopy wrote:In disagreement: I think you give people too much credit when you characterize GMO's as human creations. I think, more along Ferno's line of thinking, that we're simply finding ways to accelerate age-old selective breeding/hybridizing methods.

Ok, let's go with "bastardization" in place of creation, then. In my mind--though I'm no geneticist--even though I presume there are rules you have to play by in order for the final product to be viable, the rules are not constrained by the natural order of things to the same degree.

Let's use a computer program as an analogy--a game, for instance. The designers have given us a level creator so that we can customize/modify the game, and that customization will work for everyone that uses the game. GMOs are like using a hex editor to edit the game in order to effect the outcome you want in your level instead of using the designer or even the optional plugin interface (cross-pollination, and any other fancy methods to produce something out of the ordinary), the only difference is the person using the hex editor doesn't understand the methodology behind the structure of the program. There will be unintended consequences when these changes are exposed to the rest of the system. Can anyone tell me who it is that understand the system as a whole so well that we should be comfortable with the idea? It's all about being willing to take risks in order to achieve an unnecessary goal. We're not saving humanity here, we're coming up with something bigger and badder, and the motivator is profit/glory/pride, and the preservation of a certain way of life. There are other ways to approach the challenges experienced in agriculture.

@Simga - I don't necessarily expect any doctor to understand the issue...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:@Simga - I don't necessarily expect any doctor to understand the issue...

this would seem to be a telling aside, Sarge......would you care to elaborate upon the questions it raises with me?

1. WHY wouldn't you expect a medical professional, one who devoted years of his/her life to the rigorous study of human physiology, including
most all subdisciplines(biochemistry, immunology, genetics,etc), to 'understand the issue'?
2. If you don't expect THEM to, then why on Earth are you bloviating upon the matter?
3. Why do you so lightly dismiss Sigmas core assertion, which was that additives are vastly more dangerous than any known GMO produce?

I feel, and was trained in physiology, biochemistry and food science along my academic path, that the assertion is exactly correct. We tolerate, on a daily basis, additives in foodstuffs that ought not be consumed in anything past accidental ingestion levels. We consume chemical additives, hormones permeating some meats, pesticide and herbicide residues on fresh produce, etc, etc, yet you worry about someone breeding a more pest resistant corn?
Worry more about cleaning the food supply between field and market and you'd be far better off in the long run.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:@Simga - I don't necessarily expect any doctor to understand the issue...

I'm sure most of the people in the cities also understand it. But they have no choice but to buy junk food known in stores and eat fast food daily. Maybe that's why the vast majority of the US population suffers from obesity?

get your facts straight, Sigma. We do have a higher incidence of obesity,but 'vast majority' is probably stretching matters a bit. Much of that has less to do with additives so much as traditional portion sizing. We still feed everyone like they are about to go out and do farm work or other heavy labor for 12 hours. We never quite adjusted the American diet to account for the modern level of caloric expenditure.

sigma wrote:Any doctor will tell you that preservatives, artificial colors, flavor enhancers, etc. much more dangerous to health than GMO agricultural products.

You're forgetting sigma that Roundup Ready soybeans and corn may not by themselves be bad for human consumption, but since these crops are constantly sprayed WITH Roundup, also known as Glyphosate, a plant herbicide or POISON, humans are now ingesting that chemical in far greater amounts as this stuff coats the seeds we eat or is incorporated into the plants as they grow. Corporate farm use of this herbicide is so ubiquitous that we can't avoid eating large amounts of it in any processed foods.

As for Bt-Corn, they say that Bt Delta Endotoxin these plants produce only kills targeted insects, but we don't know the unintended consequences of humans consuming it in large amounts over a very long time. Sometimes the effects of these chemicals take years to show up as harmful to humans. Between that and all the preservatives, artificial colors and other chemicals we ingest daily, we won't know the consequences of that for YEARS, and I'm guessing there WILL be consequences.

Slick, I've said it before, I'd like the information as to whether something contains GMO's before I eat it. What's so bad about that? Let the free market decide if foods containing GMO's are something people want to buy. That's what this measure would have required, GMO labeling of foods. If people are confident enough to chow down on GMO's, then they can buy it. It's the law in Europe, but not here, so what's the problem?

tunnelcat wrote:You're forgetting sigma that Roundup Ready soybeans and corn may not by themselves be bad for human consumption, but since these crops are constantly sprayed WITH Roundup, also known as Glyphosate, a plant herbicide or POISON, humans are now ingesting that chemical in far greater amounts as this stuff coats the seeds we eat or is incorporated into the plants as they grow. Corporate farm use of this herbicide is so ubiquitous that we can't avoid eating large amounts of it in any processed foods.

well, actually we CAN, but that is where the public demand should be. This is yet another example of where one needs stringent government oversight of food supply practices. Big government that serves us all well.

Slick, I've said it before, I'd like the information as to whether something contains GMO's before I eat it. What's so bad about that? Let the free market decide if foods containing GMO's are something people want to buy. That's what this measure would have required, GMO labeling of foods. If people are confident enough to chow down on GMO's, then they can buy it. It's the law in Europe, but not here, so what's the problem?

it's a feel good measure that you will pay for at the market, but no other harm done. The silly part is that in a generation or so, you couldn't possibly declare certain crops to be non-GMO, due to random crossfertilization. As it is, some of those calls are shaky now.

callmeslick wrote:...it's a feel good measure that you will pay for at the market, but no other harm done. The silly part is that in a generation or so, you couldn't possibly declare certain crops to be non-GMO, due to random crossfertilization. As it is, some of those calls are shaky now.

Well, isn't that nice? Organic farmers have been worried about cross-fertilization from Monsanto planted fields for years and complained about it to the government to no avail. Since regulation has never caught up, Monsanto has essentially gotten away with getting things done their way.

callmeslick wrote: Big government that serves us all well.

The airport giveth, the airport taketh away.

tunnelcat wrote:

sigma wrote:Any doctor will tell you that preservatives, artificial colors, flavor enhancers, etc. much more dangerous to health than GMO agricultural products.

You're forgetting sigma that Roundup Ready soybeans and corn may not by themselves be bad for human consumption, but since these crops are constantly sprayed WITH Roundup, also known as Glyphosate, a plant herbicide or POISON, humans are now ingesting that chemical in far greater amounts as this stuff coats the seeds we eat or is incorporated into the plants as they grow. Corporate farm use of this herbicide is so ubiquitous that we can't avoid eating large amounts of it in any processed foods.

As for Bt-Corn, they say that Bt Delta Endotoxin these plants produce only kills targeted insects, but we don't know the unintended consequences of humans consuming it in large amounts over a very long time. Sometimes the effects of these chemicals take years to show up as harmful to humans. Between that and all the preservatives, artificial colors and other chemicals we ingest daily, we won't know the consequences of that for YEARS, and I'm guessing there WILL be consequences.

Slick, I've said it before, I'd like the information as to whether something contains GMO's before I eat it. What's so bad about that? Let the free market decide if foods containing GMO's are something people want to buy. That's what this measure would have required, GMO labeling of foods. If people are confident enough to chow down on GMO's, then they can buy it. It's the law in Europe, but not here, so what's the problem?

You know, TC, when something before my work was very closely related to the production of agricultural products. I traveled around the region and is familiar with many manufacturers of agricultural products. They do not eat the products they produce to supermarkets. As a minimum, each has a separate small agricultural producers manufacture products which they use only for himself. At most, they eat only what they produce on their private farms. So I know exactly what flavor should have real natural food.
As for labels and certificates for the sale of goods at retail, I'll give you 90% of these documents just bought.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:@Simga - I don't necessarily expect any doctor to understand the issue...

this would seem to be a telling aside, Sarge......would you care to elaborate upon the questions it raises with me?

I do not automatically credit anyone in the medical profession with a sound foundation, the proper path of inquiry, or the will to give such a damn beyond the scope of their own career goals. Medical professional != Medical expert, and often expert != expert. You're quick to give them and yourself heirs, but I don't buy it. In my opinion a real medical profession would have as its primary tenant the goal of putting the drug industry and any food industry that isn't organic, or at least all natural out of business. The medical industry survives and thrives because of the ignorance of the general populace--it's a pompous field built on managing the sickly health of stupid people in a stupid culture, and to try to be in the field and to do otherwise is to be a traitor.

I agree with half of Sigma's statement, but when it comes to the claim that your average medical professional knows where GMO stands, and thus is able to compare it to other health hazards, I call bull★■◆●.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I do not automatically credit anyone in the medical profession with a sound foundation, the proper path of inquiry, or the will to give such a damn beyond the scope of their own career goals.

so, basically, you have little trust in anything.

Medical professional != Medical expert, and often expert != expert. You're quick to give them and yourself heirs, but I don't buy it.

care to try this again, in English phrases and stuff next time?

In my opinion a real medical profession would have as its primary tenant the goal of putting the drug industry and any food industry that isn't organic, or at least all natural out of business. The medical industry survives and thrives because of the ignorance of the general populace--it's a pompous field built on managing the sickly health of stupid people in a stupid culture, and to try to be in the field and to do otherwise is to be a traitor.

wow, lack of trusts starts to bleed into paranoia by this point. Doctors haven't worked for you when you were sick or injured? Odd experience there, if so.

I agree with half of Sigma's statement, but when it comes to the claim that your average medical professional knows where GMO stands, and thus is able to compare it to other health hazards, I call ****.

like I said more gently.......you systematically explain why people who actually know pharmacology, biochemistry and physiology, for a living are intellectual shams, and then expect your opinion to matter, why?

It was a straight-forward reply, if not what you wanted. It's not paranoia and it has nothing to do with trust issues. I could care less whether you feel my opinion matters, and that goes for Vision too because you two are the only two I'll hear it from (unless Top Gun pipes up). "!=" is a comparison operator in computer programming which mean "is not equal to".

Anyone in the medical field is free to distinguish themselves as intellectually honest, fair-minded, legitimately altruistic, and competent, and they'll have my respect for it, but in general the king definitely has no cloths as far as I can tell.

ouch, the irony!

Like I told you before, there's a lot I don't have respect for. I know how people are. If there's one thing I've learned in life it's that people are vapid, and make a lot out of very little, and then spend much of their energy defending that image and fitting it in or sizing it according to the images around them instead of adding anything to the substance--most people think that's just what life is! Every once in awhile you find someone of real substance, but in my experience a lot of them are even fooled into respecting these vapid images and wondering why they don't stack up with all of their accomplishments.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...but when it comes to the claim that your average medical professional knows where GMO stands, and thus is able to compare it to other health hazards, I call ****.

And what do you mean by the term "average medical professional"? I certainly do not know how things are in Indiana, but in Moscow the best and professional medical specialists work in the service of "first aid", and not in private clinics. Or in hospitals for government officials of high rank.

Sigma wrote:And what do you mean by the term "average medical professional"? I certainly do not know how things are in Indiana, but in Moscow the best and professional medical specialists work in the service of "first aid", and not in private clinics. Or in hospitals for government officials of high rank.

Professional, literally--anyone who makes it their profession. Average--someone who has been to school for it, and even had experience, but has not necessarily distinguished themselves. If I enter a hospital or private practice pretty much anywhere in the state I would expect to encounter the average medical professional.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Like I told you before, there's a lot I don't have respect for. I know how people are. If there's one thing I've learned in life it's that people are vapid, and make a lot out of very little, and then spend much of their energy defending that image and fitting it in or sizing it according to the images around them instead of adding anything to the substance--most people think that's just what life is! Every once in awhile you find someone of real substance, but in my experience a lot of them are even fooled into respecting these vapid images and wondering why they don't stack up with all of their accomplishments.

having had a fair number of friends, and a few neighbors here that are physicians, I cannot think of one that couldn't see far more deeply into this issue, and most ANY issue regarding human health, than anything you've put forth here. Basically, you look with suspicion upon them and their profession, and bring nothing of any intellect to this discussion.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:In my opinion a real medical profession would have as its primary tenant the goal of putting the drug industry and any food industry that isn't organic, or at least all natural out of business.

Here is the irony of your statement. If you want to put the drug industry out of business then genetic engineering is the way. Many of the reasons we need drugs to treat illness comes from the fact that our bodies are not perfect machines. When we finally know enough to create better bodies at the level of genes then many of the drugs we use today will become obsolete. For example, cholesterol lowering drugs are some of the most widely prescribed and high cholesterol has a largely genetic origin (often made worse by poor diet, mostly from animal fats, organic or not).

Most of our diseases today are the result of too much junk food, not pesticides. Let's tackle portion sizes and snacks first.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: If I enter a hospital or private practice pretty much anywhere in the state I would expect to encounter the average medical professional.

It is really unfair that honest citizens can not receive adequate medical care. Although I know the names of a few corrupt officials in the government, and police, and thugs, and assassins who act in the interests of big business. These people are best served by prestigious public hospitals and receive the highest quality medical care, including abroad.

ignore Thorne's paranoia, Sigma. The US probably has the best doctors, hospitals and ancillary health professionals(imaging, lab,etc) in the world. We sometimes have issues around access for all, and yes, there is a top tier of professionals that deal in speciality care, and some are only accessable for a limited number of people. However, the latter are pretty rare, and most Americans could, if pressed, get state-of-the-art treatment for pretty much any disease condition one could think of. Our issues are mainly around access to routine care and medicines affordably.

callmeslick wrote:having had a fair number of friends ...

You say all of that like it somehow makes me wrong, slick... You are entitled to your opinion.

sigma wrote:It is really unfair that honest citizens can not receive adequate medical care. Although I know the names of a few corrupt officials in the government, and police, and thugs, and assassins who act in the interests of big business. These people are best served by prestigious public hospitals and receive the highest quality medical care, including abroad.

"Fair" can only be had by everyone getting out what they put in. Fair doesn't enter into it.