http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller … ing-study/
Seems there is some doubt on the new study results.
Seems there is some doubt on the new study results.
Too bad its going to be fed to methane-belching cows to produce a tiny net amount of food for the huge energy input.
Fuck Israel
We can't exactly predict it with cross-breeding either, tbf. I mean, so long as rigorous safeguards (and, yes, regulations) are put in place then there shouldn't be a huge problem.BVC wrote:
I'm not saying eliminate the process, hell no, just take care with it. Gene splicing might rule out the guesswork, but it also affects any GM plant's interaction with other things out in the paddock like insects, microbes & other plants, and those interactions are the factors we can't easily predict.Jay wrote:
What's the difference? Enough iterations of the other techniques and you might end up with the same result. Gene splicing just takes out the guesswork and speeds up the process. It's progress. Wanting to eliminate gene splicing is like wanting to eliminate calculators because slide rules were such a great way to do calculations.BVC wrote:
I don't have a problem with GM food in principal, just as long as a lot of care is taken to avoid various issues. And by GM I mean gene splicing in a lab, not techniques such as cross-polination and selective breeding.
What I do have a problem with is terminator seeds.
And pork in apples? A self-saucing pork chop sounds pretty good to me!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Assuming this refers to the same paper, seems is an understatement.RAIMIUS wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/
Seems there is some doubt on the new study results.
scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/wh … -is-bogus/
http://www.emilywillinghamphd.com/2012/ … those.html
When it comes to GMO, I don’t really have a dog in the hunt, so to speak, but brain dead studies like this one certainly prod me towards the view that much of the “science” behind anti-GMO activism just doesn’t hold water, and the easy acceptance of such nonsensical results as valid by “progressives” is just plain depressing. I mean, seriously. Even the worst depredations of pharma and Monsanto in terms of lousy studies don’t match this biased, incompetently performed and analyzed experiment. There might be valid reasons to be wary of the proliferation of GMO-based foods, such as concern over the control that large multinational corporations like Monsanto might exercise over the food supply, but the studies purporting to find horrific dangers of GMO-based food strike me as having the methodological rigor of a typical Andrew Wakefield or Mark Geier study. Perhaps that’s why I wasn’t too surprised when one of my readers pointed out that one of the authors of the study is also a homeopath and acupuncturist; so maybe the better comparison to make to this paper would be papers by homeopaths trying to show that homeopathy works. Either way, this is bad, bad science, and it’s sad to see how many people who should know better (but apparently do not) lap it up so credulously while applying much greater skepticism to science that doesn’t damn GMOs as pure poison.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Im on my phone so its hard to copypasta... Check this out: http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/26/s … -this-weekSpark wrote:
Assuming this refers to the same paper, seems is an understatement.RAIMIUS wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/
Seems there is some doubt on the new study results.
scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/wh … -is-bogus/
http://www.emilywillinghamphd.com/2012/ … those.htmlWhen it comes to GMO, I don’t really have a dog in the hunt, so to speak, but brain dead studies like this one certainly prod me towards the view that much of the “science” behind anti-GMO activism just doesn’t hold water, and the easy acceptance of such nonsensical results as valid by “progressives” is just plain depressing. I mean, seriously. Even the worst depredations of pharma and Monsanto in terms of lousy studies don’t match this biased, incompetently performed and analyzed experiment. There might be valid reasons to be wary of the proliferation of GMO-based foods, such as concern over the control that large multinational corporations like Monsanto might exercise over the food supply, but the studies purporting to find horrific dangers of GMO-based food strike me as having the methodological rigor of a typical Andrew Wakefield or Mark Geier study. Perhaps that’s why I wasn’t too surprised when one of my readers pointed out that one of the authors of the study is also a homeopath and acupuncturist; so maybe the better comparison to make to this paper would be papers by homeopaths trying to show that homeopathy works. Either way, this is bad, bad science, and it’s sad to see how many people who should know better (but apparently do not) lap it up so credulously while applying much greater skepticism to science that doesn’t damn GMOs as pure poison.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you argue apple is exploiting the patent system but don't give a second thought to companies doing the same thing with food
Apples and oranges. I believe in a patent system, just not the way the tech companies have been stockpiling them.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
you argue apple is exploiting the patent system but don't give a second thought to companies doing the same thing with food
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Thats the whole point of patents and tech companies, its frightening that agri- and bio-businesses have discovered they can do the same.
Fuck Israel
Patents on food have far more reaching consequences. Look at Monsanto and the soybean.Jay wrote:
Apples and oranges. I believe in a patent system, just not the way the tech companies have been stockpiling them.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
you argue apple is exploiting the patent system but don't give a second thought to companies doing the same thing with food
They're patenting their own gene spliced versions. You can still buy regular soy or corn seeds for planting. If they were trying to patent entire plants, then yeah, I would have a problem with that. They're making money from their own research, shrug.jsnipy wrote:
Patents on food have far more reaching consequences. Look at Monsanto and the soybean.Jay wrote:
Apples and oranges. I believe in a patent system, just not the way the tech companies have been stockpiling them.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
you argue apple is exploiting the patent system but don't give a second thought to companies doing the same thing with food
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Then sue you when their seeds blow onto your field
i just dont believe that living organisms should be patented. owning a gene sequence seems quite ridiculous
Do they not deserve some property rights over the effort, thought and resources that went into developing the modification? And if not, then what incentive is there to do it at all other than government funding - which is nowhere near enough to be effective (and this stuff is the wrong kind of research for government support anyway)?Winston_Churchill wrote:
i just dont believe that living organisms should be patented. owning a gene sequence seems quite ridiculous
Don't know the answers, ftr, (and I'm naturally suspicious of gene patents) but definitely don't think it's as simple as that.
I'm more concerned about human gene patenting. That's a really, really fraught issue for me.
Last edited by Spark (2012-09-28 06:27:46)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
oh, i definitely agree its not an easy issue at all. in a perfect world it would be funded by the government and available to license/give away, but thats fairly impractical.
i just have a big issue with someone patenting something that could theoretically exist in nature. any gene sequence could possibly exist, through a mutation or selection and end up being the same as a patented one.
if they did have to give patents - id lean more toward short, broad patents to allow them to have exclusive rights for a couple years at most.
and yes, human gene patenting is really, really messed up
i just have a big issue with someone patenting something that could theoretically exist in nature. any gene sequence could possibly exist, through a mutation or selection and end up being the same as a patented one.
if they did have to give patents - id lean more toward short, broad patents to allow them to have exclusive rights for a couple years at most.
and yes, human gene patenting is really, really messed up
At least human gene sequences have a relatively small patent window. I think they get 5 years of protection before generics can be produced.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So you have a problem with tech companies making money from their IP but not Bio-agri-businesses?Jay wrote:
They're patenting their own gene spliced versions. You can still buy regular soy or corn seeds for planting. If they were trying to patent entire plants, then yeah, I would have a problem with that. They're making money from their own research, shrug.jsnipy wrote:
Patents on food have far more reaching consequences. Look at Monsanto and the soybean.Jay wrote:
Apples and oranges. I believe in a patent system, just not the way the tech companies have been stockpiling them.
Fuck Israel
Something from the local news which illustrates my point about being careful:
Allergy-free milk on the way
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming … on-the-way
Sounds good? But...
Allergy-free milk on the way
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming … on-the-way
Sounds good? But...
Being careful would be making sure that missing tail has nothing to do with genetic modifications, and looking for other nasty surprises. Being reckless would be breeding thousands of these cows and throwing the fancy milk at the market....
She has a mysterious missing tail that AgResearch says it is investigating.
It expects to have an answer in a couple of weeks, but does not believe at this stage the lack of a tail is linked to genetic modification.
...
That's not really something you generally have to worry about in our lawsuit happy world. I'd be wary if the products were being produced by tiny fly-by-night operations, but large players have a lot at stake and don't want to be sued into oblivion by putting out shit that harms people. Our justice system isn't perfect, but civil and class action lawsuits can bring any major corporation to its knees rather quickly.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Really?Jay wrote:
That's not really something you generally have to worry about in our lawsuit happy world. I'd be wary if the products were being produced by tiny fly-by-night operations, but large players have a lot at stake and don't want to be sued into oblivion by putting out shit that harms people. Our justice system isn't perfect, but civil and class action lawsuits can bring any major corporation to its knees rather quickly.
Your plan is to place the future of the world population global environment in the hands of the short-termist corporate dunces who gave us the GFC, boom-bust economics, the ozone hole, DDT, Bhopal, the Gulf of Mexico oil rig explosion etc etc?
It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
Your Ayn Rand Libertarian nonsense is retarded and dangerous, that you continue to parrot it proves that you too are retarded and dangerous.
Fuck Israel
You make it sound so simple, *shrug*Jay wrote:
They're patenting their own gene spliced versions. You can still buy regular soy or corn seeds for planting. If they were trying to patent entire plants, then yeah, I would have a problem with that. They're making money from their own research, shrug.jsnipy wrote:
Patents on food have far more reaching consequences. Look at Monsanto and the soybean.Jay wrote:
Apples and oranges. I believe in a patent system, just not the way the tech companies have been stockpiling them.
Farmer A uses GM soybeans, adjacent farmer B does not. Some of Farmer A's winds up on farmer B's. Monsanto sues farmer B for "patent infringement". Also farmer A's seed have to be re bought (he cannot clean them for next years crop).
Monsanto owns basically 90% of all soybean production through this means. Scary one company holds all of that.
So start a competitor, there's nothing stopping you.jsnipy wrote:
You make it sound so simple, *shrug*Jay wrote:
They're patenting their own gene spliced versions. You can still buy regular soy or corn seeds for planting. If they were trying to patent entire plants, then yeah, I would have a problem with that. They're making money from their own research, shrug.jsnipy wrote:
Patents on food have far more reaching consequences. Look at Monsanto and the soybean.
Farmer A uses GM soybeans, adjacent farmer B does not. Some of Farmer A's winds up on farmer B's. Monsanto sues farmer B for "patent infringement". Also farmer A's seed have to be re bought (he cannot clean them for next years crop).
Monsanto owns basically 90% of all soybean production through this means. Scary one company holds all of that.
p.s. - i watched food, inc. too. Find a different argument.
Last edited by Jay (2012-10-02 05:44:37)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It does not have to do with simple competition it has to do with allowing patents to control our food supply.
I'm glad you saw it, granted not everything everyone says in a documentary is 100%, it's still a real argument just the same. Astonished you find no controversy in the topic. You seemed like a rational person when rounding up all those chickens on your minecraft farm.
I'm glad you saw it, granted not everything everyone says in a documentary is 100%, it's still a real argument just the same. Astonished you find no controversy in the topic. You seemed like a rational person when rounding up all those chickens on your minecraft farm.
Apart from the multi-billion dollar startup cost, that Monsanto owns all the useful patents and has the resources to rub you into the ground with lawyers forever - no nothing at all, derp.Jay wrote:
So start a competitor, there's nothing stopping you.
Thats the end-game of an unconstrained 'free' market - a single corporation ends up controlling the entire market, its 'free' for them I guess.
Fuck Israel
I still find it astonishing that Monsanto can even take Indian farmers to court over patent violations, given India's huge opposition towards foreign business'.jsnipy wrote:
It does not have to do with simple competition it has to do with allowing patents to control our food supply.
I'm glad you saw it, granted not everything everyone says in a documentary is 100%, it's still a real argument just the same. Astonished you find no controversy in the topic. You seemed like a rational person when rounding up all those chickens on your minecraft farm.
And there are other GM firms out there, particularly Japanese and Taiwanese ones.
Right, and my point is largely that Monsanto control 90% of the market not because they are evil douchebags, but because they created a superior product. There's nothing stopping farmers from producing non-roundup-ready seeds, it just works so well that if you don't use their product you are working at a disadvantage. I fail to see how providing a superior product and thus controlling a market is a bad thing. If they were doing something nefarious like having lawmakers write legislation requiring farmers to use their product (haha obamacare), then yes, I would agree that it is bad. But they're not. Free will and market forces win here. So does the customer, because we have more soy to eat than we otherwise would.Cybargs wrote:
I still find it astonishing that Monsanto can even take Indian farmers to court over patent violations, given India's huge opposition towards foreign business'.jsnipy wrote:
It does not have to do with simple competition it has to do with allowing patents to control our food supply.
I'm glad you saw it, granted not everything everyone says in a documentary is 100%, it's still a real argument just the same. Astonished you find no controversy in the topic. You seemed like a rational person when rounding up all those chickens on your minecraft farm.
And there are other GM firms out there, particularly Japanese and Taiwanese ones.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat