RE: GMO labels? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

GMO labels?


Yes to labels, no to ban.
  54% (13)
Yes to labels, yes to ban.
  41% (10)
No to labels, no to ban.
  4% (1)


Total Votes : 24
(last vote on : 7/27/2012 11:51:08 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


DomKen -> RE: GMO labels? (7/20/2012 1:38:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You're also inaccurate. While maize and wheat have long been domesticated, they certainly began as wild grasses.

Try and find a wild corn then.

Wild corn is extinct. It has been for centuries.

Read. The statement you quoted says they began as wild grasses.

No. Corn is a polyploidal hybrid between two plants. We're actually not even sure which 2 species. we're pretty sure its one or another species of Teosinte, presumably an annual species at least. The other parent species could be another species of Zea or Tripsacum dactyloides (Eastern Gamagrass) which is only slightly related to the teosinte cultivars (different genus in the same family) and looks nothing at like corn (neither does teosinte either actually).




Musicmystery -> RE: GMO labels? (7/20/2012 1:42:00 PM)

It's amazing that prehistoric people knew to do that.

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

[8|]




Moonhead -> RE: GMO labels? (7/20/2012 1:56:55 PM)

Maybe it was Whitley Streiber's short grey friends who spliced the corn for them?
A sort of warm up between sinking Atlantis and Lemuria and then building the pyramids, perhaps...




DomKen -> RE: GMO labels? (7/20/2012 2:03:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's amazing that prehistoric people knew to do that.

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

[8|]

It's apparently fairly easy to. It ws done fairly recently to create Triticale. Straight crosses of rye and wheat were complete failures. But it was found that if we exposed the germ material, in vitro, to colchicine, polyploidism could be induced and a stable fertile, with itself only, cereal could be created (in 1927). A similiar technique is responsible for seedless watermelons.

The ability to see the chromosomes under a microscope may have made the process faster and more reliable but the process predates our understanding of the underlying mechanics.




Musicmystery -> RE: GMO labels? (7/20/2012 2:09:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's amazing that prehistoric people knew to do that.

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

[8|]

It's apparently fairly easy to. It ws done fairly recently to create Triticale. Straight crosses of rye and wheat were complete failures. But it was found that if we exposed the germ material, in vitro, to colchicine, polyploidism could be induced and a stable fertile, with itself only, cereal could be created (in 1927). A similiar technique is responsible for seedless watermelons.

The ability to see the chromosomes under a microscope may have made the process faster and more reliable but the process predates our understanding of the underlying mechanics.

And apparently, civilization itself.

[8|]




DomKen -> RE: GMO labels? (7/20/2012 2:52:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's amazing that prehistoric people knew to do that.

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

[8|]

It's apparently fairly easy to. It ws done fairly recently to create Triticale. Straight crosses of rye and wheat were complete failures. But it was found that if we exposed the germ material, in vitro, to colchicine, polyploidism could be induced and a stable fertile, with itself only, cereal could be created (in 1927). A similiar technique is responsible for seedless watermelons.

The ability to see the chromosomes under a microscope may have made the process faster and more reliable but the process predates our understanding of the underlying mechanics.

And apparently, civilization itself.

[8|]

Snark is of course the universal sign that you've got no response.




DesideriScuri -> RE: GMO labels? (7/20/2012 8:17:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
Since EU consumers ran from foods labeled GMO, those in the industry vigorously fight labeling in the US.


The problem, though, is that it's getting to the point that you won't be able to eat non-GMO foods, because they won't be there.

http://www.purezing.com/living/toxins/living_toxins_gmofoods.html

http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Foods





MrBukani -> RE: GMO labels? (7/27/2012 11:18:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The lack of knowledge expressed in this thread is stunning.

First off Wheat and corn, Do you know why their are no wild wheat or corn? Because they were both created by man inserting the genes of one species of cereal grass into the genome of another distantly related species of cereal grass. By any reasonable definition of GMO all corn and all wheat qualify.

We've all been consuming Bt based insecticide for decades with no significant problems. As a matter of fact Bt derived insecticides are even allowed on organic produce. Inserting the gene(s) that makes the toxin into crop plants simply makes the plant produce something we would otherwise be spraying onto it.

People should become well educated on a subject before believing hype against it.

Just to rectify this bullshit. Not all corn is GMO by definition. The first GMO was produced round 1973. You only call it a GMO when you extract DNA and insert it directly into another organism. I am stunned at your lack of knowledge. [:D]




Rule -> RE: GMO labels? (7/27/2012 11:33:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
What do you think of GMO's?

They are an argument to abolish all patents.




DomKen -> RE: GMO labels? (7/28/2012 7:53:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The lack of knowledge expressed in this thread is stunning.

First off Wheat and corn, Do you know why their are no wild wheat or corn? Because they were both created by man inserting the genes of one species of cereal grass into the genome of another distantly related species of cereal grass. By any reasonable definition of GMO all corn and all wheat qualify.

We've all been consuming Bt based insecticide for decades with no significant problems. As a matter of fact Bt derived insecticides are even allowed on organic produce. Inserting the gene(s) that makes the toxin into crop plants simply makes the plant produce something we would otherwise be spraying onto it.

People should become well educated on a subject before believing hype against it.

Just to rectify this bullshit. Not all corn is GMO by definition. The first GMO was produced round 1973. You only call it a GMO when you extract DNA and insert it directly into another organism. I am stunned at your lack of knowledge. [:D]

So you finally thought up a definition you think makes corn not a gmo. Guess what, by your definition no commercial organism is GMO then. BTW I'm not sure we've ever actually directly inserted a gene into any organism. That simply is not how its done (probably not even possible).

I'd give it a F for lack of effort and a failure to understand the subject.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875