Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Andrew Weil, his woo, and anti-GMO hysteria... [View all]roseBudd
(8,718 posts)99. What do you call what Seralini did, which was unethical animal abuse?
Looks really bad for your side, when those kind of smarmy tactics are used.
It shouldn't take 700 scientists demanding, for a scientist to release his or her data
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/700_researchers_call_gilleseric_seralini_release_gmo_test_data-95574
We provide links to peer reviewed research that answers these questions. But you don't read them.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/03/gm-crops-and-carbon-emissions?zid=314&ah=607477d0cfcfc0adb6dd0ff57bb8e5c9
GM crops and carbon emissions
Frankenfoods reduce global warming
This years ISAAA report tries to calculate the effects of GM crops on the environment. It says they saved the equivalent of 473m kilograms of pesticides in 2011 (because GM makes crops resistant to pests); saved 109m hectares of new land being ploughed up (GM crops are usually higher-yielding so less land is required for the same output) and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 23 billion kg of carbon dioxide equivalent.
GM crops in general need fewer field operations, such as tillage. Reducing tillage allows more residue to remain in the ground, sequestering more CO2 in the soil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fewer field operations also means lower fuel consumption and less CO2.
GM crops in general need fewer field operations, such as tillage. Reducing tillage allows more residue to remain in the ground, sequestering more CO2 in the soil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fewer field operations also means lower fuel consumption and less CO2.
Biotechnology for Biodiversity
DNA Banks
More plant conservationists are turning to DNA technologies to have effective conservation strategies. The DNA bank is an efficient, simple and long-term method used in conserving genetic resource for biodiversity. Compared to traditional seed or field gene banks, DNA banks lessen the risk of exposing genetic information in natural surroundings. It only requires small sample size for storage and keeps the stable nature of DNA in cold storage. Since whole plants cannot be obtained from DNA, the stored genetic material must be introduced through genetic techniques.6
A number of DNA banks are present worldwide which include those managed by the International Rice Research Institute, South African National Biodiversity Institute, and National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences in Japan. Gene bank documentation has been enhanced with the advances in information technology, geographical information systems (GIS), and DNA marker technology. Information on DNA assessment of variation derived through these technologies help search for important genes.7 Information from DNA collections are available online through biodiversity initiatives such as Global Biodiversity Information (www.gbif.net), Species 2000 (www.species2000.org), and Inter-American Biodiversity Network (www.ukbiodiversity.net).8
In vitro techniques are also valuable for conserving plant biodiversity.9 Such techniques involve three basic steps: culture initiation, culture maintenance and multiplication, and storage. For medium-term storage (few months to few years), slow growth strategies are applied. For undefined time of storage, cryopreservation is applied.10 In cryopreservation, plant tissues are processed to become artificial seeds and stored at very low temperatures to impede growth. Cryopreservation allows 20 percent increase in regeneration process compared to other conservation methods.11
Biotech for Evaluating Genetic Diversity
Germplasm refers to living tissues from which new plants can form. It can be a whole plant, or part of a plant such as leaf, stem, pollen, or even just a number of cells. A germplasm holds information on the genetic makeup of the species. Scientists evaluate the diversity of plant germplasms to find ways on how to develop new better yielding and high quality varieties that can resist diseases, constantly evolving pests, and environmental stresses.12 Germplasm evaluation involves screening of germplasm in terms of physical, genetic, economic, biochemical, physiological, pathological, and entomological attributes.13
More plant conservationists are turning to DNA technologies to have effective conservation strategies. The DNA bank is an efficient, simple and long-term method used in conserving genetic resource for biodiversity. Compared to traditional seed or field gene banks, DNA banks lessen the risk of exposing genetic information in natural surroundings. It only requires small sample size for storage and keeps the stable nature of DNA in cold storage. Since whole plants cannot be obtained from DNA, the stored genetic material must be introduced through genetic techniques.6
A number of DNA banks are present worldwide which include those managed by the International Rice Research Institute, South African National Biodiversity Institute, and National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences in Japan. Gene bank documentation has been enhanced with the advances in information technology, geographical information systems (GIS), and DNA marker technology. Information on DNA assessment of variation derived through these technologies help search for important genes.7 Information from DNA collections are available online through biodiversity initiatives such as Global Biodiversity Information (www.gbif.net), Species 2000 (www.species2000.org), and Inter-American Biodiversity Network (www.ukbiodiversity.net).8
In vitro techniques are also valuable for conserving plant biodiversity.9 Such techniques involve three basic steps: culture initiation, culture maintenance and multiplication, and storage. For medium-term storage (few months to few years), slow growth strategies are applied. For undefined time of storage, cryopreservation is applied.10 In cryopreservation, plant tissues are processed to become artificial seeds and stored at very low temperatures to impede growth. Cryopreservation allows 20 percent increase in regeneration process compared to other conservation methods.11
Biotech for Evaluating Genetic Diversity
Germplasm refers to living tissues from which new plants can form. It can be a whole plant, or part of a plant such as leaf, stem, pollen, or even just a number of cells. A germplasm holds information on the genetic makeup of the species. Scientists evaluate the diversity of plant germplasms to find ways on how to develop new better yielding and high quality varieties that can resist diseases, constantly evolving pests, and environmental stresses.12 Germplasm evaluation involves screening of germplasm in terms of physical, genetic, economic, biochemical, physiological, pathological, and entomological attributes.13
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/44/default.asp
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
363 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
There are plenty of scientificallly illiterate people who don't believe in reality
roseBudd
Sep 2013
#141
There is "no till" organic and the idea that GMO farming reduces carbon emissions is bogus since
KurtNYC
Sep 2013
#279
My mother is alive thanks to multiple meds for atrial fibrillation & high BP...
roseBudd
Sep 2013
#123
Um ... why did you have high blood pressure and need 5 bypasses in the first place?
MH1
Sep 2013
#136
...henceforth identified as POO (corporate "science" & allied mega-funded corporate propaganda)
Berlum
Sep 2013
#92
LOL, so because you can't see the relationship it doesn't exist. Mkay. nt
laundry_queen
Sep 2013
#133
Is there any credible evidence that GMO food poses a legitimate health risk?
Gravitycollapse
Sep 2013
#16
Yeah...I was told the same thing about my kid's autism by the anti-vaxxers. I'll pass. nt
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#47
To be clear, you are suggesting that there is NO research proving that GMO is BAD for people...
truebrit71
Sep 2013
#189
Please answer my question. You are saying that there are no ill-effects to GMO at all...
truebrit71
Sep 2013
#194
Again, try Google, I neither have the time, nor the inclination to school yet another...
truebrit71
Sep 2013
#299
I may not agree with many coporations business practices such as Monsanto but I do not
liberal_at_heart
Sep 2013
#19
So you think that there's a cartel of organic producers..furtively plotting the demise of the poor..
truebrit71
Sep 2013
#198
Do you think there's some magic that prevents Monsanto from buying organic companies? (nt)
jeff47
Sep 2013
#254
do you approve of monsanto going after farmers whose fields MONSANTO has contaminated, suing
niyad
Sep 2013
#42
that is the funniest thing I have read today. PLEASE tell me you forgot the sarcasm icon, because
niyad
Sep 2013
#115
GMOs harm the intestines of the animals who eat it. Ask the farmers who've taken sick animals off it
Precisely
Sep 2013
#97
We should do both. But Ted Kennedy fought for decades to have better labeling and in the end,
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#284
At the time I was diagnosed, it took the average Celiac 11 years to get diagnosed.
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#306
But if we don't know an ingredient is in our food, there's NO chance of linking
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#356
As a personal friend of Dr. Weil, I call LIAR on that article. Why post this BS?
Coyotl
Sep 2013
#33
I know, Monsanto and GMO are awesome and safe. Roundup - I love spraying it right from the bottle..
tenderfoot
Sep 2013
#221
Union of concerned scientists... sounds like the concerned women of America.
tenderfoot
Sep 2013
#295
no, because you are threatening THEIR scientifically-based beliefs. no evidence to the contrary
niyad
Sep 2013
#41
to all who defend gmo food, answer this: if this genetic tinkering is NOT dangerous,
niyad
Sep 2013
#43
They don't want the labeling because they know that consumers don't want these products.
Gormy Cuss
Sep 2013
#44
there's propaganda on both sides. It's impossible to know the truth. Real scientific research
liberal_at_heart
Sep 2013
#73
amazingly enough, some of us actually KNOW what ascorbic acid is, and sodium chloride, but nice
niyad
Sep 2013
#116
since I have neither used that word, nor posted pictures, that remark cannot possibly be addressed
niyad
Sep 2013
#140
so GMO foods would fail in the marketplace- or be niche- like organics are. Sounds fair to me.
bettyellen
Sep 2013
#150
oh bullshit. labeling is there for consumer to use to make decisions and there is no good reason to
bettyellen
Sep 2013
#175
in other words, you don't HAVE an answer that doesn't involve huge wads of money, yes?
niyad
Sep 2013
#319
The studies don't support his views. Your anecdotal evidence is the worst kind
roseBudd
Sep 2013
#149
So you hate GMO’s because they are untested. What about feelbetteramine from the health store?
roseBudd
Sep 2013
#131
DU has become the go-to place for assinine Rightwing propaganda. "anti-GMO hysteria" my ass. nt
Romulox
Sep 2013
#147
Certainly a phrase the Monsanto PR department would approve of -- or perhaps authored
villager
Sep 2013
#176
I'm not denying science. And neither is Don Huber, retired Agri prof. at Purdue University
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#170
So GMO's are actually great, and all of the countries that have banned them have been snookered...
truebrit71
Sep 2013
#223
Right. Personal comments are so much more useful than actual logic or data. n/t
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#266
Your only contribution to a reasoned discussion was a link to an industry site.
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#277
IF GMO'S WERE GOOD FOR YOU - THEY WOULD WANT THEM TO BE LABELED! Not going in my body.
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#195
You clearly did not read the links I posted to sites that actually dig into the science.
HuckleB
Sep 2013
#247
So you think you can push crap upon others and then make excuses when they point that it's crap.
HuckleB
Sep 2013
#268
You haven't read it, but offer your opinion...tell me again how I'M the one that's full of crap...
truebrit71
Sep 2013
#289
As previously stated the site can be whatever it wants, the report, with it's SCIENCE...
truebrit71
Sep 2013
#294
Can't answer my question? If it was good for you - they would want it to be labeled, heck, they'd
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#241
HAHAHA. You're not to be taken seriously then. That was a reply, not an answer.
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#250
You failed to write science in all caps and therefore didn't convince me!!!11!!
Democracyinkind
Sep 2013
#318
So all these people pushing fear without evidence to justify fear aren't pushing fear?
HuckleB
Sep 2013
#345
Where is the independent study showing that GMO food causes long term harm?
Glassunion
Sep 2013
#324
The problem with that equation is that hybridization only happens via genetic modification.
HuckleB
Sep 2013
#331
Thus, you admit that don't understand how biology, chemistry and genetics work.
HuckleB
Sep 2013
#334
You're offering up a very simplistic definition that ignores how those things happen.
HuckleB
Sep 2013
#344
If you can't explain it simply, you probably don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein
Glassunion
Sep 2013
#348
That the shills for the chem-companies don't want labels tells you everything you need to know.
Romulox
Sep 2013
#346