Contrary to Sceptics line, I believe scientists are responsible for explaining thier creations to the public. They have signally failed to do this with GM and the anti-response is a direct result of this. Far from being naieve as Sceptic suggests, I am merely pointing out a statement in fact. It is supremely arrogant to suggest that the public should just adopt whatever we create without question. Arrogant and foolish. If scientists want GM accepted, they have to come down out of thier ivory towers and interact with the public. Why is this so hard to understand? There is no better way of dispelling "disinformation" than a dialogue with the public in an open arena. The pro-GM lobby balk at this..Why? You yourselves are creating the situation you are complaining of. You could do a hell of a lot to remedy the situation, but whinge and whine and complain instead. You bring nothing to the table, and yet expect carte blanche to do what you want. Sorry. It just doesn't work like that.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cloned meat "safe to eat" in the UK
- Thread starter ULTRA
- Start date
Ultra
The truth is actually quite the reverse of what you are saying. The initial opposition to GM did not arise out of thin air. It followed a major scientific conference on the subject, in which relevent scientists decided to report to the media exactly what they were doing, and the potential risks involved. Turned out to be their biggest mistake!
The other thing that kicked off the anti-GM movement was a report published by a scientist called Dr. Arpad Putztai about transgenic potatoes. He reported that rats fed on these suffered serious health problems. Unfortunately for Putztai, his work was sloppy, and uncontrolled (almost a fatal sin in a scientist). His report was later discredited. However, by that time, Greenpeace and other groups had decided to launch anti-GM campaigns, based on this faulty data. Putztai is now sponsored by these organisations and earns a comfortable living travelling around spreading lies about GM.
Read the full Putztai story at :
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/pusztai-potatoes.html
The bottom line is that GM foods have now been eaten by literally millions, if not billions of humans, over a time period approaching 20 years, and there is not one (Note - not even one, singular) case of any health detriment to anyone that came from the fact that their food was genetically modified.
The truth is actually quite the reverse of what you are saying. The initial opposition to GM did not arise out of thin air. It followed a major scientific conference on the subject, in which relevent scientists decided to report to the media exactly what they were doing, and the potential risks involved. Turned out to be their biggest mistake!
The other thing that kicked off the anti-GM movement was a report published by a scientist called Dr. Arpad Putztai about transgenic potatoes. He reported that rats fed on these suffered serious health problems. Unfortunately for Putztai, his work was sloppy, and uncontrolled (almost a fatal sin in a scientist). His report was later discredited. However, by that time, Greenpeace and other groups had decided to launch anti-GM campaigns, based on this faulty data. Putztai is now sponsored by these organisations and earns a comfortable living travelling around spreading lies about GM.
Read the full Putztai story at :
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/pusztai-potatoes.html
The bottom line is that GM foods have now been eaten by literally millions, if not billions of humans, over a time period approaching 20 years, and there is not one (Note - not even one, singular) case of any health detriment to anyone that came from the fact that their food was genetically modified.
Well, when you have GMO's incorporated wholesale into the foodstuffs that are consumed by the masses, it might not be that easy to track specific cases of harm. Soy and corn byproducts are in all sorts of foods, and both those crops are dominated by GMO strains.
I for one don't like the idea of genetically modified organisms being introduced into agriculture on a mass scale. Especially when you cannot guarantee that GMO crops will not cross-pollinate with normal genetics.
Seems kind of reckless to put that out on the open market.
Just recently, GM alfalfa was ok'd for mass planting everywhere.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/01/3...n-pollinating-crop-threat-to-organic-farming/
One of Monsanto's premiere lobbyists was recently appointed to a high position in the FDA, following a pattern of what I refer to as "Regulatee as Regulator"
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor/
Michael Taylor, previously Monsanto's Vice President of Public Policy.
Nothing is more disconcerting when the regulated industry sends its own to head the regulatory board. If you're looking for checks and balances, well, it isn't there.
Brings to mind the EPA (Environmental Paycheck Agency) and their lackluster performance during the Gulf Oil spill fiasco last spring.
People who hinge on these so-called regulatory, watchdog groups in the government to actually perform their duties are slightly naive.
I for one don't like the idea of genetically modified organisms being introduced into agriculture on a mass scale. Especially when you cannot guarantee that GMO crops will not cross-pollinate with normal genetics.
Seems kind of reckless to put that out on the open market.
Just recently, GM alfalfa was ok'd for mass planting everywhere.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/01/3...n-pollinating-crop-threat-to-organic-farming/
Organic farmers have been dealt a blow with the USDA’s deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa. The genetically engineered seeds will be ready for unlimited planting across the nation this spring. The announcement was a disappointment as it was hoped that the GM alfalfa would at least only be partly deregulated. That would have offered some protection from the now likely contamination by pollination between GMO and non-GMO or organic strains.
Now that the crop has been fully deregulated there are a few issues that obviously need to be addressed. First, this just serves as another reminder of where politics stand right now and that is behind GMO’s.
One of Monsanto's premiere lobbyists was recently appointed to a high position in the FDA, following a pattern of what I refer to as "Regulatee as Regulator"
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor/
In a Tuesday afternoon press release, the FDA announced that Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto executive, had joined the agency as "senior advisor to the commissioner." If the title is vague, the portfolio (pasted from the press release) is substantial--a kind of food czar of the Food and Drug Administration:
• Assess current food program challenges and opportunities
• Identify capacity needs and regulatory priorities
• Develop plans for allocating fiscal year 2010 resources
• Develop the FDA's budget request for fiscal year 2011
• Plan implementation of new food safety legislation
Michael Taylor, previously Monsanto's Vice President of Public Policy.
Nothing is more disconcerting when the regulated industry sends its own to head the regulatory board. If you're looking for checks and balances, well, it isn't there.
Brings to mind the EPA (Environmental Paycheck Agency) and their lackluster performance during the Gulf Oil spill fiasco last spring.
People who hinge on these so-called regulatory, watchdog groups in the government to actually perform their duties are slightly naive.
Last edited:
The quickest way to engender resistence to a new technology is to force it on people. This is how people feel about GM crops. If anything is going to get people worked up, playing with thier food has to be up there in the top three.
Early plantings of these crops highlighted the fears of the public when they started crossing with wild varieties and killing important insect life.
The scientific community has had ample opportunity to put its case, but has failed to do so. The public don't like evasiveness and secrecy - it reinforces mistaken beliefs and allows crackpot pseudo-scientists to take the floor. The green lobby of course take full advantage of this, and they ARE talking to the public. Why allow thier views to be spread without rebuttal? You can't blame the public for listening to them, they are entitled to listen to whatever they want. If scientists fail to put a counter arguement - and they have - you can't blame the public. They can't form a pro GM opinion if they don't know the facts. And the only facts they are getting are from the greens. To deny this is just ridiculous. If you want the situation to change, you have to be proactive and change it. Doing nothing is just gifting the floor to the anti lobby.
Early plantings of these crops highlighted the fears of the public when they started crossing with wild varieties and killing important insect life.
The scientific community has had ample opportunity to put its case, but has failed to do so. The public don't like evasiveness and secrecy - it reinforces mistaken beliefs and allows crackpot pseudo-scientists to take the floor. The green lobby of course take full advantage of this, and they ARE talking to the public. Why allow thier views to be spread without rebuttal? You can't blame the public for listening to them, they are entitled to listen to whatever they want. If scientists fail to put a counter arguement - and they have - you can't blame the public. They can't form a pro GM opinion if they don't know the facts. And the only facts they are getting are from the greens. To deny this is just ridiculous. If you want the situation to change, you have to be proactive and change it. Doing nothing is just gifting the floor to the anti lobby.
The quickest way to engender resistence to a new technology is to force it on people. This is how people feel about GM crops.
Who has been "forced" to eat anything? There are a wide variety of GMO-free (and organic) foods available if people want them.
The scientific community has had ample opportunity to put its case, but has failed to do so.
That's like saying "the scientific community has had ample time to prove that the Moon landings were not a hoax, but have failed to do so."
If you want the situation to change, you have to be proactive and change it. Doing nothing is just gifting the floor to the anti lobby.
GMO foods are being produced right now. To stop them would be a change. How will anti-GMO types be proactive and change that?
It is also true that there is little or no evasiveness. The world of GM is wide open to anyone who wants to know about it. For the first conference, when pioneering GM scientists published all possible concerns, to now, everything is fully available to anyone who cares to do a little research.
But the key point is the essential harmlessness of the technology. We get assorted anti-GM nutters running around muttering "what-if" into their beards, but a murky "what-if" is pretty much meaningless against the clear light of "what-is".
But the key point is the essential harmlessness of the technology. We get assorted anti-GM nutters running around muttering "what-if" into their beards, but a murky "what-if" is pretty much meaningless against the clear light of "what-is".
Part of the problem is that so-called harmless technology has been proven to be quite wrong in the past. Hormone replacement therapy, the pill, DDT, Melleril and all manner of other "harmless" products including strains of GM Rape have all had to be recalled. The public are right to be suspicious and should be able to choose whether or not they want to participate. The fact that a minority overreact to GM technology is not helpful to the debate any more than blind faith in the technology is.
The government here went on tv to insist beef was safe to eat during the BSE crisis, when clearly it wasn't. People died. The public have a long history of being lied to, so naturally they're suspicious. The only way to counter this is through explaining the technology in terms they can understand - and even that won't convince everyone.
The government here went on tv to insist beef was safe to eat during the BSE crisis, when clearly it wasn't. People died. The public have a long history of being lied to, so naturally they're suspicious. The only way to counter this is through explaining the technology in terms they can understand - and even that won't convince everyone.
Cloned meat!, i wont even eat cloned vegetation.
Evilness!
peace.
Evilness!
peace.
EFC
Have you never eaten a banana? They are all clones.
Ultra
No-one has suggested that novel foods, whether GM or other variety, should not be treated with caution. And GM foods, when new, are tested with numerous methods, both laboratory, and field tests. It is the unthinking paranoia of anti-GM people and organisations that I object to.
If you wish to learn more, try : http://www.nepadbiosafety.net/for-regulators/resources/subjects/food-safety/testing-procedures
The basic standard of food safety for GM foods is "substantial equivalence". This means that tests show the GM food to be of similar safety to a similar non GM food. Since this does not mean 100% safety, some anti-GM nutters get all upset about it, but it is the only possible standard that makes practical sense.
For example : suppose you are launching a GM potato. You need to prove it is just as safe as a traditional potato - substantial equivalence. Since the traditional potato is not totally safe (it contains small amounts of plant toxins), then neither will the GM potato. But if it is equally safe, it is considered OK to market.
Have you never eaten a banana? They are all clones.
Ultra
No-one has suggested that novel foods, whether GM or other variety, should not be treated with caution. And GM foods, when new, are tested with numerous methods, both laboratory, and field tests. It is the unthinking paranoia of anti-GM people and organisations that I object to.
If you wish to learn more, try : http://www.nepadbiosafety.net/for-regulators/resources/subjects/food-safety/testing-procedures
The basic standard of food safety for GM foods is "substantial equivalence". This means that tests show the GM food to be of similar safety to a similar non GM food. Since this does not mean 100% safety, some anti-GM nutters get all upset about it, but it is the only possible standard that makes practical sense.
For example : suppose you are launching a GM potato. You need to prove it is just as safe as a traditional potato - substantial equivalence. Since the traditional potato is not totally safe (it contains small amounts of plant toxins), then neither will the GM potato. But if it is equally safe, it is considered OK to market.
What I object to, Skeptic, is people suggesting that GM products do not need to be labelled as such. This denies people the opportunity to chosse for themselves whether or not they want to buy it. The recent "accidental" release of unlabelled cloned meat onto the British market is just the sort of thing that whips up the anti lobby into a frenzy, and is just plain sloppy. This does nothing to engender trust in the industry. I myself eat cheese made with rennet made from GM organisms without any known side effects. But at least it is labelled as such. Some folks seem to think this is unnecessary as they are convinced the science is 100% safe. But like the examples I mentioned earlier, other products have been thought to be safe, only to be proven faulty further down the line after people have died.
I'm not saying cloned meat is anything as bad as that, but a cavalier approach is only going to engender mistrust. Since the industry chooses not to open a dialouge with the public, it is the vocal anti lobby that sieze the floor. I am convinced the industry could handle this issue far better.
I'm not saying cloned meat is anything as bad as that, but a cavalier approach is only going to engender mistrust. Since the industry chooses not to open a dialouge with the public, it is the vocal anti lobby that sieze the floor. I am convinced the industry could handle this issue far better.
Ultra
I understand what you are saying, but where do you draw the line? Labels need to be kept simple, since most consumers are not prepared to do more than glance at them, and irrelevent information is kind of silly.
There are a lot of things that are of genuine health consequence, whereas GM or not GM has no known health consequence. For example : fruit sugar is often added to foods. The fructose content is never listed, yet it has some serious negative health consequences, which are proven.
So, we can, if people want, generate labels that are like the small print at the bottom of legal contracts, which no-one reads. Or we can keep them simple, so that people get the vital information they require. GM or not GM is not a vital piece of information.
I understand what you are saying, but where do you draw the line? Labels need to be kept simple, since most consumers are not prepared to do more than glance at them, and irrelevent information is kind of silly.
There are a lot of things that are of genuine health consequence, whereas GM or not GM has no known health consequence. For example : fruit sugar is often added to foods. The fructose content is never listed, yet it has some serious negative health consequences, which are proven.
So, we can, if people want, generate labels that are like the small print at the bottom of legal contracts, which no-one reads. Or we can keep them simple, so that people get the vital information they require. GM or not GM is not a vital piece of information.
Cloned meat, Dirty meat, forbidden meat, GM vegetables, yeah sure as if Gentiles care what they eat or how the food was treated when alive.
To know if something is truly safe you need long-term testing. so anything that comes out without being tested for longevity results and side effects is not truly safe.
Any medical things or new alchemy foods are not tested for the long term only short term effects.
Something needs to be tested through somebodies entire life, like a 75 year thorough examination with regular check ups on fluxuations. anybody tell you otherwise is spreading miss-information,
Just like with Asbestos, not testng for long term effects is irresponsible and typical of these modern generations of humans.
PEace.
Peace.
To know if something is truly safe you need long-term testing. so anything that comes out without being tested for longevity results and side effects is not truly safe.
Any medical things or new alchemy foods are not tested for the long term only short term effects.
Something needs to be tested through somebodies entire life, like a 75 year thorough examination with regular check ups on fluxuations. anybody tell you otherwise is spreading miss-information,
Just like with Asbestos, not testng for long term effects is irresponsible and typical of these modern generations of humans.
PEace.
Peace.
To know if something is truly safe you need long-term testing. so anything that comes out without being tested for longevity results and side effects is not truly safe
Historically this has been accomplished thusly:
Eat the food or starve. Wait 75 years. If most people didn't die of food poisoning from it, it's probably safe.
Nowadays this has been modified to:
Test the food on a variety of animals for decades. Do assays to look for specific toxicities. If they're OK, test it on humans. If no one dies, then it MIGHT be safe.
I'm thinking our system nowadays is a lot better than the olden timey days system.
Historically this has been accomplished thusly:
Eat the food or starve. Wait 75 years. If most people didn't die of food poisoning from it, it's probably safe.
Nowadays this has been modified to:
Test the food on a variety of animals for decades. Do assays to look for specific toxicities. If they're OK, test it on humans. If no one dies, then it MIGHT be safe.
I'm thinking our system nowadays is a lot better than the olden timey days system.
Tell that to the multiple test subjects whos heads swellwed to 4 times natural size in England, After testing a so called "Reletively harmless new prototype-Drug"
Humans are on the quest for Immortality and life extentions through science. Tehy don't want to die so they try Dabbling in Alchemy and hope they will one day pro-long their fleeting mortal shell of existence. Once you accept death you stop caring about alchemy.
Peace.
Tell that to the multiple test subjects whos heads swellwed to 4 times natural size in England, After testing a so called "Reletively harmless new prototype-Drug"
And explain your methods to the millions of people who ate contaminated pork (and died) so they could come to the same conclusion. Having your head swell up is a much better outcome than death. Our system is not ideal, but it's far, far superior to the systems of yesteryear.
Humans are on the quest for Immortality and life extentions through science. Tehy don't want to die so they try Dabbling in Alchemy and hope they will one day pro-long their fleeting mortal shell of existence. Once you accept death you stop caring about alchemy.
Uh, OK.
And explain your methods to the millions of people who ate contaminated pork (and died) so they could come to the same conclusion. Having your head swell up is a much better outcome than death. Our system is not ideal, but it's far, far superior to the systems of yesteryear.
Uh, OK.
I wouldn't know I don;t eat Pork im not a Gentile, I wouldn't be testing things in the first place. because i only eat Organic foods and im a vegetarian. I wouldn't want to create some artificial type of food to give to the masses to begin with.
My point is that all of this is wrong and shouldn't be done, you can all obviously feel free to gourge yourselves on Alchemy foods and GM produces. I will stick to Mineral water and organic process.
Peace be with you.
I wouldn't know I don;t eat Pork im not a Gentile, I wouldn't be testing things in the first place. . . .
. . . because someone else did it for you. Yep, it's good to have a lot of other people's experiences to fall back on when deciding your diet. We're a lot better at how we have those experiences nowadays.
My point is that all of this is wrong and shouldn't be done . . .
You're fortunate to be born when you were, then. Not all that long ago (on a human time scale) tomatoes were considered poisonous, and too many vegetables were considered weakening. They thought that eating vegetables was "wrong and shouldn't be done." Times change.
. . . because someone else did it for you. Yep, it's good to have a lot of other people's experiences to fall back on when deciding your diet. We're a lot better at how we have those experiences nowadays.
You're fortunate to be born when you were, then. Not all that long ago (on a human time scale) tomatoes were considered poisonous, and too many vegetables were considered weakening. They thought that eating vegetables was "wrong and shouldn't be done." Times change.
Not Quite sure what Region and period you are talking about or which "folk".
You live by the laws of man, I live by the laws of the Most High.
Peace.
Chi, although GM cropping is fairly new, it's misleading to call it alchemy. It's not a perfect science but it's getting better all the time. I happen to believe that GM crops should never be used when traditional crops will do just as well. Where I do see its usefulness is when it is necessary for particularly difficult conditions to alleviate starvation or improve vitamin and mineral supplies.
I am certian of one thing though, I believe GM ingredients must be labelled as such so people like yourself have the opportunity to avoid it should you want to. I see the choise to know exactly what you are eating as a basic human right.
I am certian of one thing though, I believe GM ingredients must be labelled as such so people like yourself have the opportunity to avoid it should you want to. I see the choise to know exactly what you are eating as a basic human right.
Chi, although GM cropping is fairly new, it's misleading to call it alchemy. It's not a perfect science but it's getting better all the time. I happen to believe that GM crops should never be used when traditional crops will do just as well. Where I do see its usefulness is when it is necessary for particularly difficult conditions to alleviate starvation or improve vitamin and mineral supplies.
I am certian of one thing though, I believe GM ingredients must be labelled as such so people like yourself have the opportunity to avoid it should you want to. I see the choise to know exactly what you are eating as a basic human right.
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
And the LORD said, "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
The days of these generations has been numbered, Your diet at maximum efficiency will let you live around 120 years max so it is written. Alchemy and food modification will not grant people long years past 120/ Before the Time of Enoch when men were of a different Calibur they were allowed to live up to 1000 years but not beyond it. Jared was the Last man to live a truely long life on earth.
Cloning, gene splicing, genetic modifications through alchemy does not please The Most high.
Peace.