Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

    I came across this article but not in a mainstream outlet. Some of you will think that disqualifies it for consideration and that's O.K.: I live in the middle of farm country and I can tell you there is more than a little concern over GMO vegetables: Insofar as I have looked into the issue, I think the concern is warranted:

    From TopInfoPost.com:

    First, some facts about GMO seeds:
    1. Patented GMO seeds are illegal to save for replanting... which Farmers have traditionally done.
    2. Soil infertility. GMO agriculture is a chemical intensive system. Agrochemicals are building up in our bodies, our water and most of all, in our soil. The accumulation of Glyphosate (roundup weed killer) is especially alarming. Farmers compensate with chemical nitrate fertilizer which causes further destruction to the soil.
    3. Monocropping: A highly diversified network of many home gardens and small to mid-sized farms, growing a great diversity of open-pollinated fruits and vegetables offers far greater food security than a few giant monocrop operations growing GMOs.
    4. Terminator seed technology (a.k.a. "the profit angle"). Terminator seeds have not yet been commercialized, but the technology does exist. Terminator refers to plants that are genetically modified to kill their own seeds. Seeds harvested from terminator crops will not germinate if replanted the following season.
    5. Dependency on a centralized food system. A network of home gardens, and small to midsize farms offers far greater food security than a centralized, globalized system.


    As part of a study on impacts from the worlds most widely used class of insecticides, nicotine-like chemicals called neonicotinoids, American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has called for a ban on their use as seed treatments and for the suspension of all applications pending an independent review of the products effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.

    It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns, said Cynthia Palmer, co-author of the report and Pesticides Program Manager for ABC, one of the nations leading bird conservation organizations.
    There is a lot more in that article, including Vladimir Putin's rage at Obama for not doing anything about neonicotinoids and the potentially disastrous effect they can have on our ability to produce the food we need. There is a short discussion over a broad range of issues all connected with GMOs.

    I find it difficult to figure out why Obama is so enamored with an organization (Monsanto) that is doing or potentially doing so much damage to our crops, animals, and ultimately, we-the-people.

    The bottom line (for me and from the article) is:
    On 26 March, Obama quietly signed this Monsanto Protection Act into law thus ensuring the American people have no recourse against this bio-tech giant as they fall ill by the tens of millions, and many millions will surely end up dying in what this MRNE report calls the greatest agricultural apocalypse in human history as over 90% of feral (wild) bee population in the US has already died out, and up to 80% of domestic bees have died out too.
    I would appreciate thoughts, particularly, from those who know more about GMOs than I do... I've already searched the internet so if that is all you've got .... well, looking forward to a thread that is NOT redirected quickly.

  • #2
    Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

    I think the danger of GMO's is way overblown.

    Man has been genetically modifying plants... and animals for thousands of years... breeding for traits we want, and to exclude those we don't.

    I believe that the human consumption of GMO crops to be 100% safe.

    I take no real issue with bio-diversity, but I'd like to point out, again, that those 'legacy' crops were also GM to their current form.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

      There was no "Monsanto Protection Act".

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

        Agreed.

        Humans have been genetically engineering species for as long as we've domesticated them and as long as we have been an agrarian society. Just now a days we are in such a hurry. We don't want to breed it into the species the old fashioned way, we just want it done over night (shoot some genomes we want into the plant cells, etc)

        I wonder what threat it would be if a GMO crop escaped into the wild and reproduced, supplanting any less GMO varieties (remember, all of today's crops are the result of selective breeding, i.e. genetic manipulation).

        I suspect that the GMO traits / genes would be lost within a few generations, and the result would be indistinguishable from the non-GMO varieties that we grow on a daily basis.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

          As the joke goes...What's the other name for "Hybrid Seeds"?...Seeds.
          Thank you, Glenn Beck, for selling "Seeds".

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

            HR 933, Section 735:
            Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
            The rider references the sections 411, 412, and 414 of the Plant Protection Act:
            Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act gives the Secretary of Agriculture power to regulate the movement of plant pests, including prohibiting them altogether or allowing pests to be moved around with a permit.
            Section 412 deals with plants, plant products, and other items (including vehicles) that might carry a plant pest into the U.S. or spread an already existing plant pest.
            Section 414 gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority to seize, treat, or destroy (or order someone else to do any of those) an item or pest in order to prevent the spread or introduction of a pest.

            With all that in mind, in short, HR 933, Section 735 says that once a plant or other organism has been declared not to be a pest, no legal challenge can stop anyone from spreading it around the U.S. until the Secretary of State declares it to be a pest... which protects Bio-engineering concerns like Monsanto from being sued to halt production of GMOs in specific fields... hence, the name "Monsanto Protection Act."

            (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

            IF GMOs are no big deal, why would Vladimir Putin be so outraged?

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

              Originally posted by Good1 View Post
              IF GMOs are no big deal, why would Vladimir Putin be so outraged?
              Since when does Vladimir Putin need a reason?

              But if he has one, it's likely to be that he doesn't control GMOs

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

                Good1, You do notice your most recent post invalidates some of the original post?

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

                  I think I'll let Penn and the late, great Dr. Norman Borlaug handle this one:

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

                    There are lots of people who grow their own food that are only using Heirloom seeds, which you can save and plant again, and do this forever. Hybrid seeds are nothing new, but with most of them if not all, if you save seeds to plant, you won't get good plants. These GMO seeds, many of them cannot be done naturally, as in some even animal or other dna is introduced.

                    To say that all GMO seeds are just like a naturally bred hybrid, isn't completely true. And Good1 is correct in that these require more chemicals than the traditional ones used for heirloom plants. They even have produced by genetic tampering a strawberry that can grow in snow, using non plant dna or genes, giving the GMO seeds an antifreeze. We won't know of some of the adverse effects upon human health for perhaps decades or longer.

                    The trouble with GMOs is it takes away diversity, acquired over hundreds of years of cultivation and natural cross breeding with the same species, with these seeds being well adapted to natural conditions on earth, in particular areas. If you have a monolithic species of GMOs, without the diversity you are playing craps with the food supply. All it takes is one blight, an evolution in insects(which happens all the time) nematodes evolving, plant disease evolving and you could wipe out an entire nations crop in one season.

                    The trouble has always been technological advances outpace human intelligence. And that is where you can get into trouble with the cost being great in human lives. When profit drives these advances, that tends to blind those folks to other very important things.

                    I am for progress, and would be an idiot if I were against hybrids, because those have given us the capability to feed more humans off the same acreage. But you should always be very careful, especially when it comes to GMOs that introduce genetic manipulation, not always from plants, overused chemicals and are not tested over a long period.

                    Remember what a monolithic food source like potatoes led to in Ireland. How man people died from that famine? They were all growing the same species of potato. We should have learned from that experience.

                    Just because we have the tech to do some things, doesn't mean we should go crazy doing it. And we have, or Monsanto has gone crazy doing it. There may be future unintended consequences, in fact you would place a safe bet if you bet that there will be.

                    For those that grew up or live on a farm, or grow their food today, they will all tell you that the old heirloom seeds may not yield as much as a GMO, but the vegetables from heirloom seeds have such a much better taste than many hybrids or GMOs. I tested out a new hybrid string bean a few years ago and it produced almost twice of what my Blue Lakes did, but they were practically tasteless, right off the vine. If you canned them or froze them, forget about it. Not worth eating. But boy they sure were prolific and pretty to look at.
                    Last edited by Blue Doggy; 05-28-2013, 02:47 PM.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

                      Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                      Good1, You do notice your most recent post invalidates some of the original post?
                      I'm not seeing it, JD: You said there is no "monsanto protection act," I quoted you chapter and verse that shows there is at least SOME protection in there for Monsanto and other bio engineering outfits.

                      How did I invalidate anything?

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

                        Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                        I think the danger of GMO's is way overblown.

                        Man has been genetically modifying plants... and animals for thousands of years... breeding for traits we want, and to exclude those we don't.

                        I believe that the human consumption of GMO crops to be 100% safe.

                        I take no real issue with bio-diversity, but I'd like to point out, again, that those 'legacy' crops were also GM to their current form.
                        What I don't like about GMO's is when they splice some bacterial gene into a plant gene. In prior years, with hybridization, the was no mixing of species. Now a BT gene is spliced into corn to kill worms. That to me crosses the line. Who knows what that gene does when introduced into the human body?

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

                          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                          What I don't like about GMO's is when they splice some bacterial gene into a plant gene. In prior years, with hybridization, the was no mixing of species. Now a BT gene is spliced into corn to kill worms. That to me crosses the line. Who knows what that gene does when introduced into the human body?
                          Ahhh... nothing?

                          No more than any other gene form anything else you ingest. To wit:

                          Thus humans have always been exposed to DNA fragments in their guts. No harmful effects have been identified and there is no evidence for this DNA affecting germ cells.

                          1. Scientific investigations mentioned by Genetic Roulette do not detect genes, they detect gene fragments that are unable to function as genes. A fragment of a gene cannot confer the characteristics of the complete gene and its associated traits. Without a functioning promoter a protein cannot be formed. A fragment of a gene cannot confer ability to produce the complete protein associated with the full gene. Smith interchanges the words genes and DNA to make it appear that whole genes are being ingested. The human diet is full of gene-sized fragments of DNA but eating these genes and gene fragments has never harmed us because we have evolved to survive the every-day challenges of eating food.

                          2. Smith misleads readers about survival of full-length transgenes in the gut of human volunteers. Smith mistakenly claims that a human feeding study detected the survival of full-length transgenes in the gut. Measurement of a small fragment of the full gene (Martin-Orue and others 2002, Netherwood and others 2004) does not show this. Smith is simply misrepresenting what the scientific article says.

                          3. No fully working transgene has been detected as moving in the way Smith asserts. There are no reports available in the scientific peer reviewed literature demonstrating that a working gene has transferred from transgenic plants (Hohlweg and Doerfler 2001, Thomson 2001). Most worryingly (see Smith’s sections 5.4 and 5.6) Genetic Roulette fabricates such evidence.

                          4. Food contains a massive numbers of other genes than the transgene and always has contained much DNA. The scenarios of gene fragment movement outlined in Genetic Roulette also apply to other food DNA, and are part and parcel of humans eating food. Over millions of years, the human gut of our ancestors has been exposed to undigested gene fragments without them causing any identifiable harm. Smith fails to discuss the similar risks posed by non-transgenic plant DNA which is abundant in the gut and which is taken up in the spleen and liver (Hohlweg and Doerfler 2001) . He pays no attention to existing sources of DNA hazards in conventional food and the evidence available from their history of safe use (Beever and Kemp 2000, Carver and Walker 1995, Hohlweg and Doerfler 2001, Doerfler and others 2001, van den Eede and others 2004).

                          Genetic Roulette Claim: In spite of industry claims, transgenes survive the digestive system and can wander. | Academics Review

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

                            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                            What I don't like about GMO's is when they splice some bacterial gene into a plant gene. In prior years, with hybridization, the was no mixing of species. Now a BT gene is spliced into corn to kill worms. That to me crosses the line. Who knows what that gene does when introduced into the human body?
                            Unless you're grafting the living plant tissue onto your body, the gene will likely be dissolved by the acid in your stomach, like pretty much anything that you eat.

                            But since we're going off about "who knows if...," who knows what any genetically modified plant gene will do to the human body?

                            If you're going to gripe, come up with some science to back up your concern.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Is Barack Obama Monsanto's man in Washington?

                              Good1, Monsanto isn't mentioned once.
                              The inability to sue for a product the is dangerous is not spellled out or indicated.
                              Contractts are not enforced.
                              Ownership of hybrid seed created by airborn pollination isn't defined or protected.
                              Use of chemicals that have otherwise been identified as dangerous is not. Identified, nor is any degree of legal protection.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X