Not logged in, login or create an account

There are 11 replies To this message.

Author Topic: GMOs
Click to reply to this message
  WillyB
  Crestwood, KY
Click to reply to this message
GMOs    (Posted Fri, Feb 25 '11 at 01:15 UTC)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

No to GMO alfalfa.

Dear Mr. President, I am and will likely remain an ardent supporter of you and your administration, but feel it my duty as a citizen of the U.S. and thus the world, to comment on your recent position relating to GMOs. You are a learned man with a depth of knowledge about many subjects, but you are making a mistake supporting GMO alfalfa or any other GMO. I have been involved in the organic food movement for 20 plus years and have read and studied how detrimental GMOs are and will be to the entire world's food production. I am aware of the benefits that science can, on a relatively short term basis bring to crop production. The long term repercussions are what should concern you and the entire world. I am asking you to take a leap of faith and trust a 60 year old man that has seen the results over a lifetime of tinkering with Mother Nature. The unintended consequences will almost assuredly more than outweigh the short term perceived benefits.

Sincerely yours,

Breck Carden

P.S. The same people that are supporting GMOs are the same ones that convinced the world that the "Green Revolution", DDT, and sewer sludge in organic compost was the answer. Don't be deceived by the siren call that science can solve all ills. There are always unforeseen negative consequences to all scientific advances; some though are irreversible, such as GMOs.

 rwilymz
 Edwardsville
Re: GMOs    (Posted Mon, Feb 28 '11 at 08:21 UTC)

What makes it "irreversible"?

Ross & Jeannie Laura Lane Lambs
 nomoregmos
 Henrico
Re: GMOs    (Posted Mon, Feb 28 '11 at 10:09 UTC)

www.centerforfoodsafety.org

Erica Gray
 nomoregmos
 Henrico
Re: GMOs    (Posted Mon, Feb 28 '11 at 10:11 UTC)

I totally agree with you.
We need to call it what it is....genetic contamination!

Erica Gray
 nomoregmos
 Henrico
Re: GMOs    (Posted Mon, Feb 28 '11 at 10:23 UTC)
Erica Gray
 rwilymz
 Edwardsville
Re: GMOs    (Posted Tue, Mar 1 '11 at 07:44 UTC)

Hey, thanks for the plug, sweetie.

Now, drop your ideological pretensions and answer: what makes it irreversible?

Ross & Jeannie Laura Lane Lambs
 WillyB
 Crestwood, KY
Re: GMOs    (Posted Tue, Mar 1 '11 at 08:43 UTC)

What we know is that GMOs cross-contaminate existing gene-pools. That is the irreversible issue.

 WillyB
 Crestwood, KY
Re: GMOs    (Posted Tue, Mar 1 '11 at 08:45 UTC)

What we know is that GMOs cross-contaminate existing gene-pools. That is the irreversible issue.

 wvhaugen
 Ferndale
Re: GMOs    (Posted Tue, Mar 1 '11 at 08:56 UTC)

Since GMO's are not subject to phenotypic selection in their development, they can take advantage of masking effects. For instance, you cannot really get recessive genes out of the gene pool because you cannot select against them. Pogroms against red hair and blue eyes would fail, for instance, because of the carriers of the unexpressed recessive trait. You also have the problem of expression of the trait after reproductive age, such as in Huntington's disease (Woody Guthrie passed it on to Arlo Guthrie before dying of it himself). There are genes that limit expression until circumstances are favorable, there are genes that control expression of other genes on a differential timeline. I suspect there are plenty more processes of gene expression out there that are yet to be discovered.

In short, there is ample evidence for the idea that once you introduce a mutation into the gene pool, it sits there forever until all the organisms which have the gene die out. This is not likely to happen if the mutation has only slightly deleterious effects on reproductive capability. GMO's are very dangerous organisms and we should NOT be releasing them into the environment. In point of fact, it is virtually certain they will escape into the larger environment. Changes in species are part and parcel of the evolution of life on earth, but making changes to the genome WITHOUT allowing the changes to be subject to natural selection at the phenotypic level is not only shortsighted and stupid, but as evil as working on nuclear weapons.

Catering to the unique Ferndale perspective.
 rwilymz
 Edwardsville
Re: GMOs    (Posted Tue, Mar 1 '11 at 09:54 UTC)

[[For instance, you cannot really get recessive genes out of the gene pool because you cannot select against them]]

While true, it's a somewhat dishonest description of the problem.

Recessive genes recess until their occurence is trivial and irrelevant.

Ambras Syndrome - quite arguably a genetic holdover from our primate past - has been documented "50 times since the Middle Ages". Among HOW many billion of us?

There comes a point at which "recessive" is beside the point.

[[I suspect there are plenty more processes of gene expression out there that are yet to be discovered.]]

Undoubtedly! So that, then, is what I'm going to guess we should all hang our neo-luddite hats on?

[[GMO's are very dangerous organisms and we should NOT be releasing them into the environment.]]

Cool. Proof by assertion. Do you have any idea of what the dangers are? or is this just another of the several Pascal's Wagers running around pretending to be rational arguments?

[[as evil as working on nuclear weapons.]]

Axiomatic nonsense. Unsupported self-righteousness.


================

So I'm going to assume you don't like it but can't really say why...

Ross & Jeannie Laura Lane Lambs
 heyletsevolve
 taos
Re: GMOs    (Posted Sun, Mar 13 '11 at 08:30 UTC)

Ross, do you have a financial interest in ignoring the body of scientific evidence documenting the dangers of GMOs? I can't believe you're simply unaware of it. Or perhaps you are just like so many who came before you, who rage into the night that the risks, dangers, and life destroying horrors of much of technology are a small price to pay for your concept of progress. Whatever the case it obviously maddens you to no end that intelligent people who you can only stupidly insult are making conscious choices to avoid the kind of nightmare scenarios that could emerge from massive crop contamination, in favor of developing agriculture in alignment with the intelligence and integrity of nature that we have learned is far more mysteriously brilliant, interconnectedly magical, and tenuously, preciously balanced than we have grasped.

Your anger is not only glaringly ugly on this lovely website as big fat wart on your face, but it also does not the slightest bit of good for your cause. If you actually want to convince anyone of anything, drop your spit producing bile filled language and attempt to use facts alone. If the truth is indeed on your side, you have nothing to lose.

 rwilymz
 Edwardsville
Re: GMOs    (Posted Tue, May 24 '11 at 05:58 UTC)

[[Ross, do you have a financial interest in ignoring the body of scientific evidence documenting the dangers of GMOs?]]

There is none.


[[I can't believe you're simply unaware of it.]]

What I am aware of is the CLAIMS of dangers that have not been sustained.

I consider this to be another entry into the "vaccine-autism" hysteria.


[[Whatever the case it obviously maddens you to no end that intelligent people who you can only stupidly insult are making conscious choices to avoid the kind of nightmare scenarios that could emerge from massive crop contamination, in favor of developing agriculture in alignment with the intelligence and integrity of nature that we have learned is far more mysteriously brilliant, interconnectedly magical, and tenuously, preciously balanced than we have grasped.]]

I've read this sentence repeatedly and it is meaningless - apart from you "stupidly insulting" someone far more intelligent than you.

[[Your anger is not only glaringly ugly on this lovely website as big fat wart on your face]]

I have not the slightest bit of "anger"; I have correctness which you INTERPRET as anger, because it allows you to feign a moral superiority that you do not otherwise possess.


[[but it also does not the slightest bit of good for your cause.]]

And what is "my cause"? You are chock full of assumptions about me that because I dare - DARE, I tellz ya - to be correct in a field of ideological nitwits that I am therefore part of some conspiratorial antithesis to your "interconnectedly magical" fantasy world you've constructed, but that is not now, nor will it ever be, the case.

[[...attempt to use facts alone. If the truth is indeed on your side, you have nothing to lose.]]

Good advice. Why don't you try that?

[[you are just like so many who came before you, who rage into the night that the risks, dangers, and life destroying horrors of much of technology are a small price to pay for your concept of progress]]

Want "facts alone" on the "life destroying horrors" of technology?

Pre-industrial revolution: life expectancy was 45, and women - mostly from childbirthing issues - was lower than men.

Post-industrial revolution: life-expectancy in societies swamped by the "life destroying horrors" of technology has risen rapidly to ~75 - a two-thirds increase in roughly two centuries.


...you were saying...?

Ross & Jeannie Laura Lane Lambs
Click to reply to this message