Skip to main content

View Diary: Golden Rice Cheerleaders have a Credibility Problem (85 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Genetic modification through hybridization is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darwinian Detrius, Kevskos

    one thing.  Genetic modification through the kinds of things Monsanto is doing, introducing genes from other species, even other orders or families, is a different thing that I feel has been poorly tested as being "harmless", which is what they claim.

    Give me the choice, however.  Don't prevent me from knowing what's in my food, since if it's safe and good for me, I shouldn't have a problem knowing and consuming it.  If they're not doing anything bad, why should they conceal it, right?

    It's like the situations where a company is prevented from advertising that their product is truly organic without any GMO's, or where 100% of their meat has been tested for mad cow disease, and big Ag says they can't advertise that because it would be unfair to the modified or untested materials.  F* them - let me know and let me choose.  I might choose products that have modifications, or haven't been tested, but that should be my choice, right?

    •  But from a scientific POV hybridization is WAY (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      the fan man

      more unpredictable and untested compared to what Monsanto is doing.

      And "radiation breeding" takes that level of unpredictability to a whole new realm, again w/o any concern.

      To me, from looking at things from a biological perspective, it is truly perplexing.

      •  Which is why I want to know if my food has been (0+ / 0-)

        modified and if so, by what means.  I'm not asking for detailed information, like this tomato was modified with jellyfish DNA, but I would think there could be some simple categories like: Organic (no modifications using other species DNA), Unprocessed (no processing other than picking and washing with natural ingredients and residuals are at some minimal level, like they do when they process leafy greens that are picked and washed prior to shipping to stores), GMO (may include DNA from outside the species), Other Alteration (may include other treatment including radiation or non-naturally present chemicals, added water or broth for moisture like happens with many meats).

        I'm not saying I'd go strictly organic, but I think that's what Monsanto fears and why they get lawmakers to pass bills preventing the labeling of food products with truthful labels.

        •  Sure, I'm totally on board with copious (0+ / 0-)

          labeling - although I suspect that eventually that simply ends up being counterproductive insofar as there is already so much "nutritional" information on foods, 97 or 98% of the people out there will simply tune out any additional information.  But for the 2 or 3% who care about the details you mention - sure, I say by all means include the information.  And why not add in whether African Americans were involved in processing the food, too, if anyone happens to be sensitive to that type of thing?  I say it's all good!!

      •  Oh you should see some of the stuff from true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        believers. They want to roll back plant modification to the turn of the century... 1900 that is.

        It's as if no one understands what has been done to spur the expression of gene variation since then. People usually don't know
        - you can't save most conventionally bred hybrid seeds (and expect the same results), farmers have to buy them every year
        - that using any herbicide or insecticide repeatedly breeds resistance, (there are far more weeds resistant to atrizine than glyphosate)
        - most modern tree fruit varieties and some ornamentals are conventionally propagated clones w/trademark protection
        - that planting two different varieties of hybrid sweet corn near each other can result in an inedible product
        -that wheat, rice, barley and oats are self pollinators
        -farmers do not buy a license from Monsanto to use the seeds procured from them (much like software) and Monsanto shares a cut of money saved by using RR or Bt crops (reduced pesticide bills)
        Oh the list goes on.

        Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

        by the fan man on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 03:05:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You CAN save seeds (0+ / 0-)

          and get incredibly similar results from open pollinated seeds from one stock.  And, actually, sometimes they improve.  I quite accidentally developed a superior type of cannellini bean than what exists on the market (and save them every year, hoarding them like gold!)

          The patents on fruit trees expire (this is often a topic thread on the internet...when does the patent on X tree expire so that I can graft an arm of it onto my existing tree?)  Plants patented before 1995 have 17 years of protection (20 years after 1995).

          Super weeds are cropping (pun intended!) up everywhere and does it really matter which chemicals are causing them??  My organic plants do not breed any sort of resistance at all!  The bonus is less work, because the beneficial insects do all of my work for me.  :)

          So, Fan Man, these arguments simply are not true.  Sorry.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site