Vegetarian Discussion: On Transgenic Organisms And GMO's In The Marketplace (ebacherdom.blogspot.com)

On Transgenic Organisms And GMO's In The Marketplace (ebacherdom.blogspot.com)
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

E*@gmail.com
2006-09-10 02:38:09 EST
By Dominic Ebacher
ebacherdom.blogspot.com

On Transgenic Organisms and GMO's in the Marketplace:

I'm posting here, because I am really looking for some intelligent
feedback. I'm a scientist and I create transgenic animals and plants.
My background is liberal, and I'm a member of the green party (which I
stand in solidarity with on most issues, but this one). So, anyone up
for an intelligent discussion on this topic, I'd be more than willing
to have an open debate (or a closed one). What I'm really looking for
is some answers to my basic questions - but to ask them I'm going to
give a litttle bit of background (for the non-scientists in the
audience).

So, what I read in this group is a negative feeling about genetically
modified organisms (most specifically, organisms which have been
bio-engineered and contain transgenes - one or more pieces of DNA which
code for proteins that have been taken from one species (say,
jellyfish) and put into another species (say, walruses).

In general when I talk to people, I get the impression that the people
who are most adament against GMO's are people who don't understand what
DNA is, what a gene is, or what a transgenic animal is. The people I am
interested in talking are people who know what all three are, and still
object (and can form an intelligent argument against) to transgenic
animals.

My perspective is this - a protein is a protein no matter where it came
from. I can eat a protein from a soybean or a protein from a cow and
they could be the same protein. I could eat a protein from anything (as
long as it wasn't a toxin) and it would still be decomposed in my small
intestine and taken up as amino acids. I appreciate diversity, and I
appreciate the value of sustaining genetic variability in wild (and
domestic) populations of animals and grasses, I appreciate that most
people here are worried abet genes spreading from a transgenic
population to a wild one.

When I tell you that with the use of transgenic gene transfer, I can
add a protein to corn which would make it a complete protein source
rather than one deficient in lysine would you still object to doing it?
What about if I made a strain of beans which could be grown with added
methionine so that it too would be a complete protein sounce (that is,
having all the essential amino acids - you could eat only beans and not
suffer from malnutrition). What about plants that could be grown with
vaccines in them for those in remote places, or the potential for
biological fuel and plastic sources (those are all transgenics too,
mind you).

I see transgenics as a tool for the future, for allowing sustainable
cultures to perpetuate themselves indefinitely without needing science
to cure or support them. I see GMO's as curing the suffering caused
from dietary and nutritional deficiencies. I see GMO's as becoming the
pharmacy that each one of us could grow on our windowsill and
perpetuate as we saw fit, for only the price of a few seeds or a
generous neighbor in the middle of the jungle.

It is just so hard for me, because I fight stronger than anyone that I
know for the preservation of the earth and all of her natural
resources. I work for increased protections for all life, appreciated
or not. I seek to make it easier for cultures which are not-developed
or which choose to remain un-developed (or revert to a less-civilized
way) to go their own without losing out on the benefits that medicine
and technology have brought us. But, it is my feeling that many other
people who fight for these same things also oppose GMO's and Transgenic
organisms without realizing the potential for good that they would be
squashing out by declaring a moratorium on these products.

I believe that everyone has a right to make the choices they see fit -
to eat a GMO food, or to know if a product they might eat would contain
anything of a transgenic origin. I also believe that religious muslims
have a right to flaggelate themselves if they want (that doesn't mean I
think its either good or bad or silly. As I oppose the current
administration for doing so, I will say that I think it is a very poor
idea to let decisions on national (or international) policy be governed
by those who are afraid rather than those who are informed. I don't
think GMO's should be forced on anyone - but neither do I feel that
they should be denied anyone or outlawed in any way (although I don't
feel that putting a warning label on something is an outlaw per se and
would support that).

Are there others out there who share my opinion? Are there other
like-minded liberals who don't neccessarily agree with the luddite
majority of the green tide? Are there other scientists who have thought
of these same questions and have input as to things I might not have
considered.

Foremost: I am a resource, as a scientist and a consumer - anyone who
doesn't feel they know as much about transgenics, GMO's or anything
relating to DNA or anything biological I am willing to field your
questions and help you become informed, so that you can make the
decision that is right for yourselves. I don't believe that propaganda
( "frankenfoods") and name-calling are right-minded policies and I
abhor them as much in the anti-GMO crowd as I do in those that stand
outside abortion clinics and yell "BABY-KILLERS!" at passers-by. I
believe in educated consumers, making choices which are based on
personal choices, and the diversity of life. If anyone has any
questions (on this, or any other topic) I am a resource and would be
pleased to help anyone learn a bit more about the beauty of life that
we are a part of in this world.

That being said, I am willing to field all comments, concerns,
suggestions, admonitions, and words of support on this topic.

And that is my two cents.
So, what do you think?

Dominic Ebacher
ebacherdom.blogspot.com
031115.0028


Chico Chupacabra
2006-09-10 09:54:42 EST
removed afvs from cross-post so that un-moderated group's self-appointed
"moderator" larry fruity can't complain yet again to my isp...

e*m@gmail.com wrote:

> By Dominic Ebacher
> ebacherdom.blogspot.com
>
> On Transgenic Organisms and GMO's in the Marketplace:
>
> I'm posting here, because I am really looking for some intelligent
> feedback.

Think you'll find intelligence among "vegans"? Hahaha.

> I'm a scientist and I create transgenic animals and plants.

Thank you for your work.

> My background is liberal, and I'm a member of the green party (which I
> stand in solidarity with on most issues, but this one).

Well, nobody's perfect.

> So, anyone up
> for an intelligent discussion on this topic, I'd be more than willing
> to have an open debate (or a closed one). What I'm really looking for
> is some answers to my basic questions - but to ask them I'm going to
> give a litttle bit of background (for the non-scientists in the
> audience).
>
> So, what I read in this group is a negative feeling about genetically
> modified organisms (most specifically, organisms which have been
> bio-engineered and contain transgenes - one or more pieces of DNA
> which code for proteins that have been taken from one species (say,
> jellyfish) and put into another species (say, walruses).

Why walruses? I doubt many here have the opportunity to eat them.

> In general when I talk to people, I get the impression that the people
> who are most adament against GMO's are people who don't understand
> what DNA is, what a gene is, or what a transgenic animal is. The
> people I am interested in talking are people who know what all three
> are, and still object (and can form an intelligent argument against)
> to transgenic animals.

Or transgenic plants. I just returned from the store where I bought some
pluots (aka apriums). This is a species that doesn't naturally occur in
the wild, but Whole Foods, who has taken a position against GMOs, turns
a blind eye to pluots and other foods -- grains, legumes, vegetables
(I saw broccoflower there, too) -- that are derived from man meddling
with nature.0

> My perspective is this - a protein is a protein no matter where it
> came from. I can eat a protein from a soybean or a protein from a cow
> and they could be the same protein. I could eat a protein from
> anything (as long as it wasn't a toxin) and it would still be
> decomposed in my small intestine and taken up as amino acids. I
> appreciate diversity, and I appreciate the value of sustaining genetic
> variability in wild (and domestic) populations of animals and grasses,
> I appreciate that most people here are worried abet genes spreading
> from a transgenic population to a wild one.

"Most people here" are twits with a reflexive opposition to anything
which benefits corporations (because they make a profit) or human
beings (because veganism/animal rights is nothing more than
misanthropy).

> When I tell you that with the use of transgenic gene transfer, I can
> add a protein to corn which would make it a complete protein source
> rather than one deficient in lysine would you still object to doing
> it? What about if I made a strain of beans which could be grown with
> added methionine so that it too would be a complete protein sounce
> (that is, having all the essential amino acids - you could eat only
> beans and not suffer from malnutrition). What about plants that could
> be grown with vaccines in them for those in remote places,

Among the nitwits in these groups is a large contingent of
anti-vaccination Luddites and conspiracy theorists (e.g., that
vaccinations are the CIA's way of keeping people down).

> or the
> potential for biological fuel and plastic sources (those are all
> transgenics too, mind you).

Ignorance is bliss, so vegans are quite content.

> I see transgenics as a tool for the future, for allowing sustainable
> cultures to perpetuate themselves indefinitely without needing science
> to cure or support them. I see GMO's as curing the suffering caused
> from dietary and nutritional deficiencies. I see GMO's as becoming the
> pharmacy that each one of us could grow on our windowsill and
> perpetuate as we saw fit, for only the price of a few seeds or a
> generous neighbor in the middle of the jungle.

_______________ (insert vegan and leftwing nutjob hysteria against
Monsanto here, haha).

> It is just so hard for me, because I fight stronger than anyone that I
> know for the preservation of the earth and all of her natural
> resources.

Then why are you a Green supporter? Their "solutions" haven't solved
"problems" anywhere they've been tried. If anything, the Green solutions
worsen the problems. The USSR, North Korea, and China most closely
resemble (resembled in the case of the USSR) the world the Greens would
give us. It's not a cleaner world where everyone has enough to eat, it's
a dank cesspoll governed by want and neglect.

> I work for increased protections for all life, appreciated
> or not. I seek to make it easier for cultures which are not-developed
> or which choose to remain un-developed (or revert to a less-civilized
> way) to go their own without losing out on the benefits that medicine
> and technology have brought us. But, it is my feeling that many other
> people who fight for these same things also oppose GMO's and
> Transgenic organisms without realizing the potential for good that
> they would be squashing out by declaring a moratorium on these
> products.

That's why you should flee the authoritarianism of the Left and embrace
free markets. Leftist authoritarianism proclaims the few (Greens) better
know and protect the interests of the many (everyone else). They're not
more open-minded than right-wingers -- the very fact that they would
limit others' rights via moratoria on everything from what kind of seeds
you can use to what kind of food you can eat -- proves as much.

> I believe that everyone has a right to make the choices they see fit -

Then you should abhor the Greens, not embrace them.

> to eat a GMO food, or to know if a product they might eat would
> contain anything of a transgenic origin. I also believe that religious
> muslims have a right to flaggelate themselves if they want (that
> doesn't mean I think its either good or bad or silly. As I oppose the
> current administration for doing so, I will say that I think it is a
> very poor idea to let decisions on national (or international) policy
> be governed by those who are afraid rather than those who are
> informed.

What evidence do you have that our policy is one based on fear rather
than on knowledge? When someone says he will come to your house and kick
your ass, you can either wait for him to try it or you can confront him.
Our former policy was to wait and treat terrorists as ordinary
criminals. Our current policy is to take the fight straight to those who
want one. You may not appreciate it, but it's certainly not based on
fear.

> I don't think GMO's should be forced on anyone - but neither
> do I feel that they should be denied anyone or outlawed in any way
> (although I don't feel that putting a warning label on something is an
> outlaw per se and would support that).

Then you're not a Green. If you were a Green, you would appreciate the
authoritarian bent that goes along with being one.

> Are there others out there who share my opinion?

I doubt many vegans will share your opinion on GMOs.

> Are there other
> like-minded liberals who don't neccessarily agree with the luddite
> majority of the green tide?

Probably not. That's why they're rabidly leftist in the first place:
because they're emotive twats who have no use for facts or reason.

> Are there other scientists who have
> thought of these same questions and have input as to things I might
> not have considered.
>
> Foremost: I am a resource, as a scientist and a consumer - anyone who
> doesn't feel they know as much about transgenics, GMO's or anything
> relating to DNA or anything biological I am willing to field your
> questions and help you become informed, so that you can make the
> decision that is right for yourselves. I don't believe that propaganda
> ( "frankenfoods") and name-calling are right-minded policies and I
> abhor them as much in the anti-GMO crowd as I do in those that stand
> outside abortion clinics and yell "BABY-KILLERS!" at passers-by. I
> believe in educated consumers, making choices which are based on
> personal choices

Then you're not much of a Green. Greens revel in their emotive
propaganda and have a propensity for authoritarianism that makes any
"rightwing agenda" pale in comparison.

>, and the diversity of life. If anyone has any
> questions (on this, or any other topic) I am a resource and would be
> pleased to help anyone learn a bit more about the beauty of life that
> we are a part of in this world.
>
> That being said, I am willing to field all comments, concerns,
> suggestions, admonitions, and words of support on this topic.
>
> And that is my two cents.
> So, what do you think?

I think you need to reassess your self-identification as a member of a
leftwing authoritarian movement. You're too reasonable and accomodating
to be a Green.

D*@.
2006-09-10 21:59:59 EST
On 9 Sep 2006 23:38:09 -0700, ebacherdom@gmail.com wrote:

>I see transgenics as a tool for the future, for allowing sustainable
>cultures to perpetuate themselves indefinitely without needing science
>to cure or support them. I see GMO's as curing the suffering caused
>from dietary and nutritional deficiencies. I see GMO's as becoming the
>pharmacy that each one of us could grow on our windowsill and
>perpetuate as we saw fit, for only the price of a few seeds or a
>generous neighbor in the middle of the jungle.

Well IF it would be like that, sure, why not?

>I work for increased protections for all life, appreciated or not.

Probably the most not appreciated lives are those of livestock.
If it were practical to grow meat without the animals, or to place
the animals in a comatose state at birth and keep them that way
so they never knew the experience of life, do you think that would
be ethically superior to farming conscious animals: always, never,
or depending on what their quality of life would be if conscious?

Vish
2006-09-11 03:38:50 EST
If a protein is a protein is a protein, did Nature really design
seperate species at random?

About GMO's as curing the suffering caused from dietary and nutritional
deficiencies -->
Who causes these deficiences in the first place ???
Other industries which work hand in glove with the gmo industry, aka
the "processing" industries.

Instead of approaching your problem from this angle, why dont you
examine the causes rather than try to remove the symptoms. Isnt it so
typical of modern science that they try to artificially solve lifestyle
problems which should not happen in the first place if people really
grew up knowing what food choices to make?

If real knowledge was taught & imbibed by kids, we would see the
economy collapse because all the redundant industries would vanish, &
that includes the gmo tribe.

Its very smart of the processing industries & modern misplaced
priorities to cause the very diseases, which scientists & doctors then
try to solve. Very convenient indeed, since it contributes to a
"vibrant" economy, eh :-)

I am not really answering all your questions, because I dont subscribe
to even an iota of your views.

Its ridiculous that anyone would even consider your proposition as a
'choice', but then knowing how authentic info is hard to come by; even
the donkey gets his place in the spotlight :D

Thanks again to Laurie for sharing info which is most often trampled
on, by vested interests!

(the above is not meant to be offensive, it just sets the tone for a
reply)


e*m@gmail.com wrote:
> By Dominic Ebacher
> ebacherdom.blogspot.com
>
> On Transgenic Organisms and GMO's in the Marketplace:
>
> I'm posting here, because I am really looking for some intelligent
> feedback. I'm a scientist and I create transgenic animals and plants.
> My background is liberal, and I'm a member of the green party (which I
> stand in solidarity with on most issues, but this one). So, anyone up
> for an intelligent discussion on this topic, I'd be more than willing
> to have an open debate (or a closed one). What I'm really looking for
> is some answers to my basic questions - but to ask them I'm going to
> give a litttle bit of background (for the non-scientists in the
> audience).
>
> So, what I read in this group is a negative feeling about genetically
> modified organisms (most specifically, organisms which have been
> bio-engineered and contain transgenes - one or more pieces of DNA which
> code for proteins that have been taken from one species (say,
> jellyfish) and put into another species (say, walruses).
>
> In general when I talk to people, I get the impression that the people
> who are most adament against GMO's are people who don't understand what
> DNA is, what a gene is, or what a transgenic animal is. The people I am
> interested in talking are people who know what all three are, and still
> object (and can form an intelligent argument against) to transgenic
> animals.
>
> My perspective is this - a protein is a protein no matter where it came
> from. I can eat a protein from a soybean or a protein from a cow and
> they could be the same protein. I could eat a protein from anything (as
> long as it wasn't a toxin) and it would still be decomposed in my small
> intestine and taken up as amino acids. I appreciate diversity, and I
> appreciate the value of sustaining genetic variability in wild (and
> domestic) populations of animals and grasses, I appreciate that most
> people here are worried abet genes spreading from a transgenic
> population to a wild one.
>
> When I tell you that with the use of transgenic gene transfer, I can
> add a protein to corn which would make it a complete protein source
> rather than one deficient in lysine would you still object to doing it?
> What about if I made a strain of beans which could be grown with added
> methionine so that it too would be a complete protein sounce (that is,
> having all the essential amino acids - you could eat only beans and not
> suffer from malnutrition). What about plants that could be grown with
> vaccines in them for those in remote places, or the potential for
> biological fuel and plastic sources (those are all transgenics too,
> mind you).
>
> I see transgenics as a tool for the future, for allowing sustainable
> cultures to perpetuate themselves indefinitely without needing science
> to cure or support them. I see GMO's as curing the suffering caused
> from dietary and nutritional deficiencies. I see GMO's as becoming the
> pharmacy that each one of us could grow on our windowsill and
> perpetuate as we saw fit, for only the price of a few seeds or a
> generous neighbor in the middle of the jungle.
>
> It is just so hard for me, because I fight stronger than anyone that I
> know for the preservation of the earth and all of her natural
> resources. I work for increased protections for all life, appreciated
> or not. I seek to make it easier for cultures which are not-developed
> or which choose to remain un-developed (or revert to a less-civilized
> way) to go their own without losing out on the benefits that medicine
> and technology have brought us. But, it is my feeling that many other
> people who fight for these same things also oppose GMO's and Transgenic
> organisms without realizing the potential for good that they would be
> squashing out by declaring a moratorium on these products.
>
> I believe that everyone has a right to make the choices they see fit -
> to eat a GMO food, or to know if a product they might eat would contain
> anything of a transgenic origin. I also believe that religious muslims
> have a right to flaggelate themselves if they want (that doesn't mean I
> think its either good or bad or silly. As I oppose the current
> administration for doing so, I will say that I think it is a very poor
> idea to let decisions on national (or international) policy be governed
> by those who are afraid rather than those who are informed. I don't
> think GMO's should be forced on anyone - but neither do I feel that
> they should be denied anyone or outlawed in any way (although I don't
> feel that putting a warning label on something is an outlaw per se and
> would support that).
>
> Are there others out there who share my opinion? Are there other
> like-minded liberals who don't neccessarily agree with the luddite
> majority of the green tide? Are there other scientists who have thought
> of these same questions and have input as to things I might not have
> considered.
>
> Foremost: I am a resource, as a scientist and a consumer - anyone who
> doesn't feel they know as much about transgenics, GMO's or anything
> relating to DNA or anything biological I am willing to field your
> questions and help you become informed, so that you can make the
> decision that is right for yourselves. I don't believe that propaganda
> ( "frankenfoods") and name-calling are right-minded policies and I
> abhor them as much in the anti-GMO crowd as I do in those that stand
> outside abortion clinics and yell "BABY-KILLERS!" at passers-by. I
> believe in educated consumers, making choices which are based on
> personal choices, and the diversity of life. If anyone has any
> questions (on this, or any other topic) I am a resource and would be
> pleased to help anyone learn a bit more about the beauty of life that
> we are a part of in this world.
>
> That being said, I am willing to field all comments, concerns,
> suggestions, admonitions, and words of support on this topic.
>
> And that is my two cents.
> So, what do you think?
>
> Dominic Ebacher
> ebacherdom.blogspot.com
> 031115.0028


E*@gmail.com
2006-09-11 09:24:02 EST
My viewpoints on GMO's aren't really a product of articles or
propaganda of any sort - its not like you can go to Monsanto.com and
find line-by-line refutations for the main problems posed by the
propaganda-mill at frankenfoods.org. What I think is mostly a product
of my own undertanding of science, and biology and the basic
harmlessness of proteins and the lack of fitness in animals that are
made transgenic (and inherent safeguard against gene pool pollution in
natural populations). So, since I didnt' come to this understanding by
the normal route - I don't have any real articles to recommend.

Does anyone else have any recommendations for our intrepid explorer?

Obliged,

Dominic Ebacher
ebacherdom.blogspot.com

On 9/11/06, Stephen <noreply-comment@blogger.com> wrote:

Stephen has left a new comment on your post "Reintegrating into my
world.":

I read your post on rec.food.veg. I really liked it. If possible
could you give me some articles and the like supporting GMO. I'm
against it, but now that you mention it, I really don't know why. You
can find me at http://sphorbis.zaadz.com



Posted by Stephen to Great, and getting better every day! at
9/11/2006 2:40 AM




--
The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another
must wait till that other is ready, and it may be a long time before
they get off. -Thoreau
-----
Dominic's Blog: ebacherdom.blogspot.com
e*m@gmail.com wrote:
> By Dominic Ebacher
> ebacherdom.blogspot.com
>
> On Transgenic Organisms and GMO's in the Marketplace:
>
> I'm posting here, because I am really looking for some intelligent
> feedback. I'm a scientist and I create transgenic animals and plants.
> My background is liberal, and I'm a member of the green party (which I
> stand in solidarity with on most issues, but this one). So, anyone up
> for an intelligent discussion on this topic, I'd be more than willing
> to have an open debate (or a closed one). What I'm really looking for
> is some answers to my basic questions - but to ask them I'm going to
> give a litttle bit of background (for the non-scientists in the
> audience).
>
> So, what I read in this group is a negative feeling about genetically
> modified organisms (most specifically, organisms which have been
> bio-engineered and contain transgenes - one or more pieces of DNA which
> code for proteins that have been taken from one species (say,
> jellyfish) and put into another species (say, walruses).
>
> In general when I talk to people, I get the impression that the people
> who are most adament against GMO's are people who don't understand what
> DNA is, what a gene is, or what a transgenic animal is. The people I am
> interested in talking are people who know what all three are, and still
> object (and can form an intelligent argument against) to transgenic
> animals.
>
> My perspective is this - a protein is a protein no matter where it came
> from. I can eat a protein from a soybean or a protein from a cow and
> they could be the same protein. I could eat a protein from anything (as
> long as it wasn't a toxin) and it would still be decomposed in my small
> intestine and taken up as amino acids. I appreciate diversity, and I
> appreciate the value of sustaining genetic variability in wild (and
> domestic) populations of animals and grasses, I appreciate that most
> people here are worried abet genes spreading from a transgenic
> population to a wild one.
>
> When I tell you that with the use of transgenic gene transfer, I can
> add a protein to corn which would make it a complete protein source
> rather than one deficient in lysine would you still object to doing it?
> What about if I made a strain of beans which could be grown with added
> methionine so that it too would be a complete protein sounce (that is,
> having all the essential amino acids - you could eat only beans and not
> suffer from malnutrition). What about plants that could be grown with
> vaccines in them for those in remote places, or the potential for
> biological fuel and plastic sources (those are all transgenics too,
> mind you).
>
> I see transgenics as a tool for the future, for allowing sustainable
> cultures to perpetuate themselves indefinitely without needing science
> to cure or support them. I see GMO's as curing the suffering caused
> from dietary and nutritional deficiencies. I see GMO's as becoming the
> pharmacy that each one of us could grow on our windowsill and
> perpetuate as we saw fit, for only the price of a few seeds or a
> generous neighbor in the middle of the jungle.
>
> It is just so hard for me, because I fight stronger than anyone that I
> know for the preservation of the earth and all of her natural
> resources. I work for increased protections for all life, appreciated
> or not. I seek to make it easier for cultures which are not-developed
> or which choose to remain un-developed (or revert to a less-civilized
> way) to go their own without losing out on the benefits that medicine
> and technology have brought us. But, it is my feeling that many other
> people who fight for these same things also oppose GMO's and Transgenic
> organisms without realizing the potential for good that they would be
> squashing out by declaring a moratorium on these products.
>
> I believe that everyone has a right to make the choices they see fit -
> to eat a GMO food, or to know if a product they might eat would contain
> anything of a transgenic origin. I also believe that religious muslims
> have a right to flaggelate themselves if they want (that doesn't mean I
> think its either good or bad or silly. As I oppose the current
> administration for doing so, I will say that I think it is a very poor
> idea to let decisions on national (or international) policy be governed
> by those who are afraid rather than those who are informed. I don't
> think GMO's should be forced on anyone - but neither do I feel that
> they should be denied anyone or outlawed in any way (although I don't
> feel that putting a warning label on something is an outlaw per se and
> would support that).
>
> Are there others out there who share my opinion? Are there other
> like-minded liberals who don't neccessarily agree with the luddite
> majority of the green tide? Are there other scientists who have thought
> of these same questions and have input as to things I might not have
> considered.
>
> Foremost: I am a resource, as a scientist and a consumer - anyone who
> doesn't feel they know as much about transgenics, GMO's or anything
> relating to DNA or anything biological I am willing to field your
> questions and help you become informed, so that you can make the
> decision that is right for yourselves. I don't believe that propaganda
> ( "frankenfoods") and name-calling are right-minded policies and I
> abhor them as much in the anti-GMO crowd as I do in those that stand
> outside abortion clinics and yell "BABY-KILLERS!" at passers-by. I
> believe in educated consumers, making choices which are based on
> personal choices, and the diversity of life. If anyone has any
> questions (on this, or any other topic) I am a resource and would be
> pleased to help anyone learn a bit more about the beauty of life that
> we are a part of in this world.
>
> That being said, I am willing to field all comments, concerns,
> suggestions, admonitions, and words of support on this topic.
>
> And that is my two cents.
> So, what do you think?
>
> Dominic Ebacher
> ebacherdom.blogspot.com
> 031115.0028


Vish
2006-09-15 09:31:29 EST
> propaganda-mill at frankenfoods.org. What I think is mostly a product
> of my own undertanding of science, and biology and the basic
> harmlessness of proteins and the lack of fitness in animals that are
> made transgenic (and inherent safeguard against gene pool pollution in

I came to my conclusions through direct experience of leading a natural
lifestyle aided in large parts by something called "yoga". Now, I dont
claim that whatever yoga says is true; it is only after experiencing
what it advocates as a part of pre-conditions (that it imposes on the
would-be student) -- that I can stress on the point I write on.


> natural populations). So, since I didnt' come to this understanding by
> the normal route - I don't have any real articles to recommend.
>
> Does anyone else have any recommendations for our intrepid explorer?

This explorer has already found the more mundane answers dealing with
the lower rungs of physical perfection. Now he seeks the guidance of an
authentic yogin to lead him on to the higher rungs. Quite difficult if
not impossible in modern times, but I have my fingers crossed :-)

Let me put it this way - modern science is quite antagonistic to
evolution. We spend billions & trillions of dollars to correct diseases
which have their root cause in people either being unable or refusing
to follow a correct lifestyle (which in itself is caused by improper
upbringing, plus loss of correct values, plus media influence, plus
peer pressure)

To specifically address your GMO concern - I am sure you're aware that
a lot of species that are actually beneficial to health & are available
in abundance --are classified as "weeds" in modern times. For example -
Amaranthus spinosus or even Purslane(Portulaca oleracea) aka pigweed.
Why??? This question can only be answered by our ever illustrious
nutritionists & scientists; & decided upon by the gigantic processing
industries (not forgetting the pesticide & chemical fertilizer
industries)

Because its so convenient to try eliminating the nutrition growing in
abundance, & then claiming that we are in shortage of natural
nutrition; so let's turn to *ahem* synthesized stuff that includes GMO.
Why so??? Because it means $$$ for a strong & vibrant economy :)
More synthesis leads to more research & more research leads to more
synthesis, while on the sidelines it leads to the biggest experiment
ever undertaken on humanity with woefully inadequate research for long
term effects that may not take a single lifetime, but maybe several
generations to appear.

--vj


E*@gmail.com
2006-09-18 00:58:29 EST

> Let me put it this way - modern science is quite antagonistic to
> evolution. We spend billions & trillions of dollars to correct diseases
> which have their root cause in people either being unable or refusing
> to follow a correct lifestyle (which in itself is caused by improper
> upbringing, plus loss of correct values, plus media influence, plus
> peer pressure)

I couldn't disagree with your point more. Although there are many
aspects of health-promotion that can be corrected with correct diet,
lifestyle etcetera these are not things that can typically be corrected
through genetic engineering. On the contrary, engineering in the human
genome, when possible (and it will be sooner rather than later) will
first and foremost be focused on the elimination of adverse
afflictions, disease states, and undesirable traits that impede upward
mobility in society. The ability to cure disease on a genetic level is
the most technologically advanced form of preventative medicine ever
conceived and will cost taxpayers and insurance agencies so much money
I wouldn't be surprised if they paid for the initial high-cost
pre-natal screen procedures themselves just to save on health-care
costs in the long-run.

To be more succinct: yeah, there's a lot that's wrong with health of
humans that's due to negligence and neglect. The problems that can be
solved with Genetic engineering are not among these. You can't cure
cystic fibrosis with healthy living or diet.

> To specifically address your GMO concern - I am sure you're aware that
> a lot of species that are actually beneficial to health & are available
> in abundance --are classified as "weeds" in modern times. For example -
> Amaranthus spinosus or even Purslane(Portulaca oleracea) aka pigweed.
> Why??? This question can only be answered by our ever illustrious
> nutritionists & scientists; & decided upon by the gigantic processing
> industries (not forgetting the pesticide & chemical fertilizer
> industries)
>
> Because its so convenient to try eliminating the nutrition growing in
> abundance, & then claiming that we are in shortage of natural
> nutrition; so let's turn to *ahem* synthesized stuff that includes GMO.
> Why so??? Because it means $$$ for a strong & vibrant economy :)
> More synthesis leads to more research & more research leads to more
> synthesis, while on the sidelines it leads to the biggest experiment
> ever undertaken on humanity with woefully inadequate research for long
> term effects that may not take a single lifetime, but maybe several

There are no long-term effects. That's what non-science people don't
seem to understand. The creation of a GMO is an environmentally benign
event and not something that could ever cause damage to the environment
or human health all on its own because it is simply the addition of a
protein - and all proteins get broken down during digestion anyway,
regardless of their function or informational content (with the
possible exception of lectins: but nobody is really proposing these as
good candidates for commercial transformations that I am aware of).

Your body is made to break down ANY protein. If you could eat it in
the squid, than you can eat that same squid protein if it is grown in
corn or if it was sythesized in a lab without any plant or animal being
present at all.

It all goes down the same hole, and gets degraded the same way: The
controversy over long-term effects is just a straw-man argument with
little to no merit whatsoever.

Dominic Ebacher
ebacherdom.blogspot.com


Vish
2006-09-18 03:45:50 EST
> solved with Genetic engineering are not among these. You can't cure
> cystic fibrosis with healthy living or diet.

Ah you missed my point once again. Why cant we analyse why you do get
cystic fibrosis in the first place? The analysis should not be about
malfunctions in genes, but rather why those malfunctions take place. If
you could really have some people actually follow a correct lifestyle &
study them against those who do so only in varying degrees, you'll
discover a lot. But heredity which inherits the good & bad traits will
complicate matters, & modern day science is in too much of a hurry to
be so patient.

And if we did find out that some factors may be due to the inevitable
side-effects of modern progress ---would we still stop such progress?
I doubt it.


> There are no long-term effects. That's what non-science people don't
> seem to understand. The creation of a GMO is an environmentally benign

Show me a study that's been done. If we dont even have proper studies
which cover the lifetime of an individual, I guess we can forget
multiple generations. I'm sure we are very aware how monsanto engineers
their seeds so that farmers are forced to buy related pesticides from
them, which wont be available elsewhere.
Very convenient.

Even countries in the third world have miserably failed while trying to
ape the West. The green revolution in India was a complete failure.

In the end, my query remains - on "side-effects". I am not convinced by
your theoretical arguments no matter how sophisticated they become. If
you did start a practical study *on humans*, I doubt you would be
around to see the results. We know how the prevalence of a bewildering
variety of diseases has shot up in the US beginning the early part of
the last century when processed food came into the picture.

Plus you did not comment on naturally occuring *weeds* :-)

When there is no basis or cause to even turn to gmo, plus there are no
known studies for side-effects, why should we consider it as a choice???


E*@gmail.com
2006-09-18 11:42:04 EST

> Ah you missed my point once again. Why cant we analyse why you do get
> cystic fibrosis in the first place? The analysis should not be about
> malfunctions in genes, but rather why those malfunctions take place. If
> you could really have some people actually follow a correct lifestyle &
> study them against those who do so only in varying degrees, you'll
> discover a lot. But heredity which inherits the good & bad traits will
> complicate matters, & modern day science is in too much of a hurry to
> be so patient.

I don't think its a matter of being patient or not - when lives are
stake and you're talking about the quality of people's lives, I'm
pretty sure being part of a multigenerational study of suffering isn't
something that anyone would subject themselves too (even if the
scientists or yogists of some sort were willing to do the studying).

People get CF because a gene is broken, is has a mutation - a very
common one that originated 30,000 years ago and when some persona is
unlucky enough to get 2 copies than they get the disease. It has
nothing to do with rightful living, of the patient, his parents, or
anyone going back 100 generations - it is bad luck, and it is back luck
that can be prevented with modern genetic intervention. It has
nothing to do with how you live, AT ALL.


> And if we did find out that some factors may be due to the inevitable
> side-effects of modern progress ---would we still stop such progress?
> I doubt it.

I don't disagree with this. But attempting to stop such progress
simply out of the fear that somethign might go wrong (when you have 1
million scientists telling you it probably won't) seems a little
ludditious and backwards. Besides, I don't think most forms of genetic
engineering would be forced on anyone - and I think that if people want
to be superstitious and wait to see, they should be allowed to, but
their superstitions shouldn't impede widespread adoption of a "safe"
technology by those who wish to utilize its benefits.

> > There are no long-term effects. That's what non-science people don't
> > seem to understand. The creation of a GMO is an environmentally benign

> Show me a study that's been done. If we dont even have proper studies
> which cover the lifetime of an individual, I guess we can forget
> multiple generations. I'm sure we are very aware how monsanto engineers
> their seeds so that farmers are forced to buy related pesticides from
> them, which wont be available elsewhere.
> Very convenient.

They're in the business of making money - that was a no-brainer for
them. You object to corporations making money by selling a superior
product? As for the studies - there should be no studies because
anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of biology understands at
the simplest level that this technology is benign. Much, Much more
benign than using any chemicals at all (and so better than the
alternatives). Plus, what Monsanto is doing is not exactly the most
creative application of this technology - so don't let their little
world cloud your understanding of the potential that this technology
truly does have to change the face of the world in more ways than Even
I can imagine at this point.


> Even countries in the third world have miserably failed while trying to
> ape the West. The green revolution in India was a complete failure.

I am not really aware of this movement, or its effects or reasons for
failure, so I am at a loss to comment here. If you'd share more with
me what you know about this topic, I would be happy to learn about it.

> In the end, my query remains - on "side-effects". I am not convinced by
> your theoretical arguments no matter how sophisticated they become. If
> you did start a practical study *on humans*, I doubt you would be
> around to see the results. We know how the prevalence of a bewildering
> variety of diseases has shot up in the US beginning the early part of
> the last century when processed food came into the picture.

Processed food contains extraneous chemicals - little concoctions that
some scientist came up in a lab and found it had such and such
properties, got a patent, did some tests on mice showed that it didn't
have any immediate effects on human health and started adding to food.
But that was a chemical.

"protein" is not a chemical - I mean it is, but it is a natural
chemical, and the chemical our bodies are most able to digest and
integrate because we break it down and it becomes a part of us. When
we eat some preservative, our body has probably NO idea what to do
with this crap - our evolutionary history has not prepared us to be
able to handle these man-made chemicals. The half-life of teflon in
the human body is 8 years, things like that can't be good.

But they CAN handle proteins - of all shapes and sorts, and that's all
a transgenic organism has extra is one or a few extra proteins.

I really think that environmentally-minded people should be embracing
transgenic technologies for the potential that they offer to provide
natural alternatives to processed foods. Tomatoes that last longer on
the shelf (naturally) rather than processed tomatoe paste with
preservatives would be one example of such a product. With more
research and sophisticated implication - it could be possible to raise
a whole host of transgenic plants with all sorts of properties that
make our food safer, more easily digested, decrease alergic responses,
are more nutritious, are easier to grow and better for the environment
to boot. Monsanto's doing it to make a few bucks, and its products
increase rather than decrease chemical use (but they do increase
yields) - that's not the way I'd go, but it doesn't mean that's the
only way it can go. But until people start having more open minds, and
let go of their phobias about GMO's or products that contain them,
there isn't a market to supply the funding for research into how to
make organic foods better. Indeed, many people probably would say that
GMO's and Organic foods are the antithesis of one another. But I
predict in the coming decades, when we finally learn the long-term
teratogenic effects of all of those chemicals we've been putting into
processed foods people will really start to see the benefits in working
with nature to create GMO's that prevent the need for chemicals while
providing a superior, more healthful food to consumers.

I like weeds - not in my garden because they take away from the plants
I have growing there. But, I like to employ a biological solution for
my weeds - letting them be grazed by guinea pigs before they can seed
and this takes care of them, and the guinea pigs enjoy the greens
immensely.

It is the future. You can resist it - rail against it - but I can tell
you as a scientist that your fears are unfounded and eventually you
will come to see GMO's not as the monsters they are portrayed but as a
wonderful new tool for bettering the health of all mankind. People
just don't understand thte biology - and that's the biggest problem,
because people are afraid of what they can't understand and this is
probably the best modern example there is. I don't blame you for not
trusting the coorperations - but trust the scientists who know what
they're doing. If they're eating what they produce, knowing full well
exactly what it is - you have to believe they know what they're doing,
and they wouldn't do anything to hurt anyone (even if such a thing were
possible, which I contend it probably isn't).

A rousing debate sir - you have a most civil demeanor, and this is most
laudable and appreciated!

dominic ebacher
ebacherdom.blogspot.com


Vish
2006-11-11 04:00:43 EST
e*m@gmail.com wrote:
> People get CF because a gene is broken, is has a mutation - a very
> common one that originated 30,000 years ago and when some persona is
> unlucky enough to get 2 copies than they get the disease. It has
> nothing to do with rightful living, of the patient, his parents, or
> anyone going back 100 generations - it is bad luck, and it is back luck
> that can be prevented with modern genetic intervention. It has
> nothing to do with how you live, AT ALL.

Do you have substantiated proof?
If they discovered that genes underwent mutations not just at birth (as
a result of bad heredity) - but also over the individual's lifetime
depending on how they live --
would it become fashionable to tinker with the genes multiple times as
often as required?


> to be superstitious and wait to see, they should be allowed to, but
> their superstitions shouldn't impede widespread adoption of a "safe"
> technology by those who wish to utilize its benefits.

When I read about the GMO strains jumping out of the controlled
environment and infecting the natural counterparts, do we, the
"non-gmo" people even have a choice?


> product? As for the studies - there should be no studies because
> anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of biology understands at
> the simplest level that this technology is benign. Much,

I still dont buy that. Show me multi-generational finely tracked
experiments, and maybe it will be interesting.
The way I see it - if there are positive outcomes of some scientific
breakthrough and maybe fewer negative side effects PLUS the said
effects are only evaluated for the short term rather than long term
---we know its going to be adopted.


> > ape the West. The green revolution in India was a complete failure.
>
> I am not really aware of this movement, or its effects or reasons for
> failure, so I am at a loss to comment here. If you'd share more with

Oh, its common sense. Rampant use of synthetic and modern ways of
farming have lead to irreversible declines over the decades. The indian
government doesnt see that - instead it is all gung-ho about tripling
the use of technology/science to extract more out of the land.
Ever heard the story about the hen who lays golden eggs? - that's where
India is headed :-)


> But they CAN handle proteins - of all shapes and sorts, and that's all
> a transgenic organism has extra is one or a few extra proteins.

If that were indeed the case - I dont think we would have this great
debate about whether it is more healthy to be vegetarian rather than
eating meat.


> I really think that environmentally-minded people should be embracing
> transgenic technologies for the potential that they offer to provide
> natural alternatives to processed foods. Tomatoes that
last longer on
> the shelf (naturally) rather than processed tomatoe paste with
> preservatives would be one example of such a product. With more

But why? if the planet is designed to support a certain number of
people with civilization centered around interconnected spots which
need to grow their own local produce instead of resorting to gmo &
other fads ---then why march against it?
Food is naturally not meant to last much longer & the rot that must set
into it - is part of how things have been designed. You talk of a tiny
subset of an intricate rich system that science barely has a grasp of.


> a whole host of transgenic plants with all sorts of properties that
> make our food safer, more easily digested, decrease alergic responses,
> are more nutritious, are easier to grow and better for the environment
> to boot. Monsanto's doing it to make a few bucks, and its

You imply that whatever grows naturally is any less nutritious? The
comparison you are making - is with processed food. Now why not
eliminate the "processed" movement and go back to what we were/are
designed to consume.
Difficult isnt it? we have "desires" and "moods" and "emotions" and
"feelings". We are conditioned by our modern upbringing to get "bored"
of eating the same old thing, we are systematically made addicts to a
variety of things like MSG, artificial white sugar, etc.
I simply believe the solution lies not in changing the natural food
system - but re-analysing the set of misplaced moral & ethical values
that form our society nowadays.
Believe me, its not different anywhere - the same homogenity exists in
cultures both eastern & western.


> I like weeds - not in my garden because they take away from the plants
> I have growing there. But, I like to employ a biological solution for

Sir, I meant that the "weeds" are not weeds - they are meant to be
consumed, and not run away from.


> It is the future. You can resist it - rail against it - but I can tell
> you as a scientist that your fears are unfounded and eventually you
> will come to see GMO's not as the monsters they are portrayed but as a
> wonderful new tool for bettering the health of all mankind. People

Oh there are far bigger monsters to tackle, GMO is just one of the
many. A few years down the line, when I try seeking pristine land to
practice self-sustainable organic farming - I admit that maybe such
land will only exist in fairytales or books.


> exactly what it is - you have to believe they know what they're doing,
> and they wouldn't do anything to hurt anyone (even if such a thing were

Oh no, I never questioned such intentions. It is just that the entire
direction itself is not very well researched. You say the contrary -
but if it were - we wouldnt be where we are right now.


> A rousing debate sir - you have a most civil demeanor, and this is most
> laudable and appreciated!

You're most welcome!
:)

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron