The Warring States of NPF  

Go Back   The Warring States of NPF > Dead threads
User Name
Password
Mark Forums Read
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Join Chat

 
View First Unread View First Unread   Click to unhide all tags.Click to hide all tags.  
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 06-07-2005, 04:44 PM   #1
TheSpacePope
Gigity
 
TheSpacePope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lincoln. Nebraska
Posts: 1,536
TheSpacePope has a spectacular disco-style aura about.
Send a message via AIM to TheSpacePope
Default Genetic Engineering and Pesticides, Are They dangerous?

This is a topic I've only recently delved into. There are a lot of differing opinions about it and I would really like to see what people think about it and the link to cancer and other genetic mutations and the like. Now people, I am providing information about pesticides and Ge foods so you can all read up before you make a decision. This makes my post really long. Bear with me and moderators don't be pissed. (I don't want this to end up like the stem cell argument, all off topic and shit) I also encourage you to find information from multiple sources and give that information. Please cite your material. I kind of want to get away from the "This is my opinion, you suck" posts.
And meister, I know you are reading this, just delete the comments that don't follow the rules.
PLEASE BE SURE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLES, THESE ARE JUST PORTIONS
Here is some info on the GE Foods it is from http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssue...GEFoodSafe.asp
Is GE Food Safe?
by Anup Shah January 20, 2002

The potential benefits of genetically engineered food are exciting. At the same time though, there are real concerns on biodiversity, the ecosystem and people's safety if such food has not been tested properly and guaranteed to be safe. As economics are factored in, there is also some concern as to who benefits from such technology, people in need, or people who need more.
No Adequate Testing.
It is often claimed that there have been no adverse consequences from over 500 field releases in the United States. In 1993, for the first time, the data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) field trials were evaluated to see whether they supported these safety claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which conducted the evaluation, found that the data collected by the USDA on small-scale tests had little value for commercial risk-assessment. Many reports fail to mention -- much less measure -- environmental risks.
Scientists have warned that non-target species can be affected by genetically modified food. They also urge a precautionary approach to allow science, law and regulations to catch up with the advances that have been made. Some GM crops still seem to require pesticide use as well.
Long Term Effects are Unknown.
Reducing Pesticides, Increased Yields?

Here is a slightly darker look at GE foods from DR Joseph Mercola
www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/ge_food.htm
Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium
Introductory Overview

The technology of genetic engineering (GE), wielded by transnational "life science" corporations such as Monsanto and Novartis, is the practice of altering or disrupting the genetic blueprints of living organisms -- plants, animals, humans, microorganisms -- patenting them, and then selling the resulting gene-foods, seeds, or other products for profit.
Gene engineers all over the world are now snipping, inserting, recombining, rearranging, editing, and programming genetic material. Animal genes and even human genes are randomly inserted into the chromosomes of plants, fish, and animals, creating heretofore unimaginable transgenic life forms. For the first time in history, transnational biotechnology corporations are becoming the architects and "owners" of life.
Genetic engineering of food and fiber products is inherently unpredictable and dangerous -- for humans, for animals, the environment, and for the future of sustainable and organic agriculture. As Dr. Michael Antoniou, a British molecular scientist points out, gene-splicing has already resulted in the "unexpected production of toxic substances... in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen."
The hazards of GE foods and crops fall basically into three categories: human health hazards, environmental hazards, and socioeconomic hazards. A brief look at the already-proven and likely hazards of GE products provides a convincing argument for why we need a global moratorium on all GE foods and crops.
In 1994, the FDA approved the sale of Monsanto's controversial GE recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) -- injected into dairy cows to force them to produce more milk -- even though scientists warned that significantly higher levels (400-500% or more) of a potent chemical hormone, Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF-1), in the milk and dairy products of injected cows, could pose serious hazards for human breast, prostate, and colon cancer.
A number of studies have shown that humans with elevated levels of IGF-1 in their bodies are much more likely to get cancer. In addition the US Congressional watchdog agency, the GAO, told the FDA not to approve rBGH, arguing that increased antibiotic residues in the milk of rBGH-injected cows (resulting from higher rates of udder infections requiring antibiotic treatment) posed an unacceptable risk for public health. Even the GATT Codex Alimentarius, a United Nations food standards body, has refused to certify that rBGH is safe.
Other problems in the article.
Genetic Pollution
Creation of GE "Superweeds" and "Superpests"
Creation of New Viruses and Bacteria
Genetic "Bio-Invasion"

And now for the pesticide side of the issue See the full article for details
http://www.prn2.usm.my/mainsite/bull...1997/sun5.html

The pros and cons of pesticide use
By Dr. Mohd. Isa Abdul Majid

FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, different natural substances have been used as pesticides. Initially, salts of metal, sulphur, natural oils and tobacco products were utilised.

During the last 50 years or so, chemical synthesis of pesticides has increased considerably. Now, there are more than 55 classes and 1,500 individual substances produced in more than 100,00 formulations of pesticides.

Basically, pesticides are created to control or destroy pests. Insecticides control insects, herbicides control weeds, fungicides control fungi such as mould and mildew and rodenticides control rodents. In additions, pesticides are also defined by their method of dispersal (such as fumigant) or mode of action (such as ovicide which kills eggs of pests). Some of these chemicals are applied to control pests that reduce crop yields or to protect the nutritional value of our food. Others are used for cosmetic purposes to enhance the appearance of fresh food.

Pesticide use in agriculture, forestry, industry, public health and households make them one of the most common type of chemicals coming into contact with all groups of a population. They are widely used in all countries due to their proven effect in vector control and their effectiveness in agriculture.

However, pesticides represent a very serious health and environmental problem. Preventing their eventual adverse effects is much more difficult than is the case with other substances used in industries.


Anyway, in my opinion, given the current technology, GE foods are probably more dangerous than they should be and as for pesticides, too many synthetics, definitely a like between pesticides and cancer, examples beign DDT and Agent Orange.
So I guess my real question is this, If GE foods can reduce the need for pesticides, then is it a worthwile area of study, or in contrast, should we be working on safer pesticides.
At this point I say we should be working on both.
As for the current GE Foods on the market, there is a link between them and cancer, however it remain unsubstantiated. (except in the case of bovine recombinant insuline like grouth factor) But just so you know, and are inclined to research, here is a list of companies that currently test, produce, and distribute GE foods.

COMPANIES INVOLVED IN GENETIC ENGINEERING


Agritope
Asgrow
Calgene
Ciba-Geigy
DeKalb
DNA Plant Tech.
Dupont
Ecogen
Hoechst/AgrEvo
Monsanto
Mycogen
Northrup King
Petro Seed
Plant Genetic Systems
Research Seeds
Rhone Merieux
Rhone Poulenc
Sandoz
Zeneca

BRAND NAME PRODUCTS WHICH MAY BE (OR ARE) GENETICALLY ENGINEERED OR CONTAIN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENTS


BT corn
Coca Cola
Fleishmanns margarine
Fritos
Green Giant Harvest Burgers
Karo Corn Syrup
Kraft Salad Dressings
McDonalds French Fries
Nestle Crunch
Nutrasweet
Quaker Oats corn meal
Roundup Ready Soybeans
Similac Infant Formula

FOODS WHICH MAY BE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED OR CONTAIN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENTS


Amylase is used in making bread, flour, whole wheat flour, cereals, starch,
glucose syrup, cider, wine, beer etc.
Baking powder - additives in processing
Bread - soy in
Canola Oil
Catalase is used in making soft drinks, egg albumen, liquid whey
Cereals - soy in
Chymosin (rennet)
Corn Products
Corn Starch
Corn Syrup
Food Supplements - yeast in
Fruit juices may be processed with genetically engineered products
Glucose Syrup
Ice Cream - soy in etc.
Lactase
Maize
Pasta - soy in
Potatoes
Rennet
Soft Drinks - in the processing or corn syrup
Soy Products like soy sauce, burgers, frankfurters, powders etc.
Soybeans
Squash
Sugar - in the processing
Tofu
Tomatoes
Yeast

Happy hunting to all. This is a situation that affects us all.
__________________
Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust

Last edited by TheSpacePope; 06-07-2005 at 04:51 PM.
TheSpacePope is offline Add to TheSpacePope's Reputation  
Unread 06-07-2005, 09:24 PM   #2
Mental-Rectangle
Sad Toaster
 
Mental-Rectangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 256
Mental-Rectangle is reputed to be..repu..tational. Yes.
Default

There's nothing harmful about GM foods.
The level of pesticides required to kill a human is too high to ever obtain from ingestion.
Both are a very welcome alternative to buggy food.
Mental-Rectangle is offline Add to Mental-Rectangle's Reputation  
Unread 06-08-2005, 03:42 AM   #3
Viper Daimao
Ninja Death God
 
Viper Daimao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,087
Viper Daimao is reputed to be..repu..tational. Yes.
Send a message via ICQ to Viper Daimao Send a message via AIM to Viper Daimao Send a message via Yahoo to Viper Daimao
Default

i think penn and teller said it best in their show "Bullshit"

"Unless you and yours are starving, then shut the fuck up" fact is, genetically motified crops save millions of lives a year. so its pretty arrogant of us to eat our plentiful food at the grociery store and claim staving kids in india and africa shouldnt eat geneticaly engineered crops.
__________________
"Falsehood is worse than hate, and that must be;
if she whom I love, should ever love me"
Viper Daimao is offline Add to Viper Daimao's Reputation  
Unread 06-08-2005, 03:58 AM   #4
DarthZeth
Army of Two
 
DarthZeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: I yam where i yam
Posts: 1,573
DarthZeth will become famous soon enough. Eventually. Maybe.
Send a message via AIM to DarthZeth
Default

Quote:
GE foods are probably more dangerous than they should be
not as dangerous as starving to death.
__________________
I AM A FUCKING IDEA THIEF
I stole Krylo's idea and all I got was this stupid signature


Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

This I Believe

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Jesus
I believe in liberal ideas because I donít trust people.
DarthZeth is offline Add to DarthZeth's Reputation  
Unread 06-08-2005, 07:17 AM   #5
Lucas
Shotokan Master
 
Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 529
Lucas is an unknown quantity at this point.
Default

Quote:
not as dangerous as starving to death.
You'd be surprised. The operator they use in agrobacteria to transfer DNA from bacterial plasmids into plants is often modified to increase the level of gene expression. the genetic analogy is that there's a classical music concert, and the scientists come in from the back door and play heavy metal as loud as they can. There's a lot of possible dangers, but that's why we test so much. Concentration, as well as content of the enzymes/products of the introduced gene could very well create problems that were not forseen.

Also important is that those operators i mentioned are recombination hotspots, meaning that should they get transferred to bacteria (and it happens often) the bacteria, and any viruses that attack said bacteria, will recombine much quicker than normal. Add this to the fact that bacteria can share their genetic code, especially with Hfr type cells, and all shit COULD break loose.

That's why biologists get paid to do their work: so that shit doesn't break loose.
Lucas is offline Add to Lucas's Reputation  
Unread 06-08-2005, 01:49 PM   #6
TheSpacePope
Gigity
 
TheSpacePope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lincoln. Nebraska
Posts: 1,536
TheSpacePope has a spectacular disco-style aura about.
Send a message via AIM to TheSpacePope
Default

Ok, so honestly, I am talking about cumulative effects, not imediaries. I am also talking about facts....Fact 1. You can ingest enough pesticide to kill you, you just do it over time and it gives you cancer(maybe), or it kills you outright.
Fact 2..All starvation in this world is political. I know that is a tough sell for people that are starving, but current food production is enough to take care of the whole world, minus GE FOODS. Fact 3. Ge foods have not been properly tested to identify the dangers. Fact 4. The united states is the only country in the world that gave the go ahead for montasano to use rBGH which every other country has outlawed. Even the starving ones
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Mercola
In 1994, the FDA approved the sale of Monsanto's controversial GE recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) -- injected into dairy cows to force them to produce more milk -- even though scientists warned that significantly higher levels (400-500% or more) of a potent chemical hormone, Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF-1), in the milk and dairy products of injected cows, could pose serious hazards for human breast, prostate, and colon cancer.

A number of studies have shown that humans with elevated levels of IGF-1 in their bodies are much more likely to get cancer. In addition the US Congressional watchdog agency, the GAO, told the FDA not to approve rBGH, arguing that increased antibiotic residues in the milk of rBGH-injected cows (resulting from higher rates of udder infections requiring antibiotic treatment) posed an unacceptable risk for public health.

In 1998, heretofore undisclosed Monsanto/FDA documents were released by government scientists in Canada, showing damage to laboratory rats fed dosages of rBGH. Significant infiltration of rBGH into the prostate of the rats as well as thyroid cysts indicated potential cancer hazards from the drug. Subsequently the government of Canada banned rBGH in early 1999. The European Union has had a ban in place since 1994.

Although rBGH continues to be injected into 4-5% of all US dairy cows, no other industrialized country has legalized its use. Even the GATT Codex Alimentarius, a United Nations food standards body, has refused to certify that rBGH is safe. (Also see: Monsanto and Fox TV Unite to Suppress Journalists'Free Speech on Hazards of Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST)
Genetically engineered products clearly have the potential to be toxic and a threat to human health. In 1989 a genetically engineered brand of L-tryptophan, a common dietary supplement, killed 37 Americans and permanently disabled or afflicted more than 5,000 others with a potentially fatal and painful blood disorder, eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), before it was recalled by the Food and Drug Administration.

So with this new evidence, obviously there is something wrong with GE foods.
Another thing, not environmentaly related is that mass produced GE foods will put the organic farmer out of buisness, because they cannot keep up with the super pests and superweeds that have been created from the genetic drift, which is yet another problem with ge foods.
I just have a problem trusting the very genetic makeup of my body on some profit driven sceme to lower production costs. Montasanto and Kraft aren't interested in feeding the starving, they are interested in turning a profit. So to say that Ge foods save the lives of the starving......PROVE IT. Cite an article, say something other than quote Penn and teller.....Show me a doctor that said it or someone QUALIFIED.......
Thats all I got.
__________________
Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust
TheSpacePope is offline Add to TheSpacePope's Reputation  
Unread 06-08-2005, 09:37 PM   #7
Mental-Rectangle
Sad Toaster
 
Mental-Rectangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 256
Mental-Rectangle is reputed to be..repu..tational. Yes.
Default

Both of these cases are unqualified examples. The errors weren't caused by genetic engineering, but by using hazardous steroid control.

The cows were injected with hormone, and way too much of it; that's why it showed up in the milk. They weren't genetically modified. Had they been, they would've posed no threat to anyone's health. Think for a moment; 400% levels of rBGH are not going to cause a cow to produce 400 times as much milk; cows aren't designed to process that much rBGH, so it saturated the milk. If they had resorted to an artificial hormone, the detrimental effects would've likely been lower, since it wouldn't find anywhere to interfere with our own chemistry.

Quote:
L-tryptophan
This has exactly nothing to do with genetic engineering. They bread bacteria to produce a hazardous substance in a lab. The substance was hazardous, not the breeding technique. An argument against GM should revolve around examples of spontaneous emergence of poisons or harmful chemicals that transfer to the consumer, not intentional misuse of well-documented hormones that weren't made through GM.

Humans produce IGF naturally. IGF is an organic chemical. It was not derived from artificial tweaking or anything. We hear about athletes bulking up on it all the time. This is more of the same, just with cows.

Quote:
Another thing, not environmentaly related is that mass produced GE foods will put the organic farmer out of buisness, because they cannot keep up with the super pests and superweeds that have been created from the genetic drift, which is yet another problem with ge foods.
Like pollinates like. GM corn pollinates regular corn, and vice versa, resulting in crop impurity. That does nothing to weeds. Oh yes, I have problems with RT companies, but you're faulting technology over issues easily solved through regulation. The primary concern here is that the regular farmers can wind up with modified plants in their field, and get the living jesus sued out of them, despite it not being within their control. THAT is a legal issue, an economic issue, one that doesn't get solved by regressing technologically.

And even though I could appeal to authority, I'm too lazy. Leave Penn & Teller out of this; they're not reputible sources.

Last edited by Mental-Rectangle; 06-08-2005 at 09:39 PM.
Mental-Rectangle is offline Add to Mental-Rectangle's Reputation  
Unread 06-09-2005, 12:17 AM   #8
Lucas
Shotokan Master
 
Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 529
Lucas is an unknown quantity at this point.
Default

Quote:
Like pollinates like. GM corn pollinates regular corn, and vice versa, resulting in crop impurity. That does nothing to weeds.
That's not quite true. If the GM corn is infected with any virus, upon the completion of the lytic cycle, there's a possibility that a virus will be formed containing genes from the modified plant. This virus could easily drop the genes from the GM plants into bacteria, thus causing a round of bacterial evolution that would eventually give T-plasmids genetic information from the GM plants. That would mean that the weeds CAN get genes from the GM corn. that isn't to say that it'll happen at a retardo-fast rate.

Vertical and horizontal gene transfer are facts: it happens, we know it happens, and we've seen it happen. The problem is that its a very natural process: some believe that without it, we'd still be at the fish stage of evolution. Does tinkering with the DNA of a limited amount of plants have the ability to change the entire genetic makeup of the world? yes it does, but it could very well be a change which takes thousands of years to occur, or it could turn out to be highly beneficial. even then, the change would most likely be something incredibly mundane. Cells with grossly broken genetic machinery are normally giving the cytotoxic death anyways.
Lucas is offline Add to Lucas's Reputation  
Unread 06-09-2005, 01:35 AM   #9
Staizer
"I was a Llama once"
 
Staizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 487
Staizer is reputed to be..repu..tational. Yes.
Send a message via AIM to Staizer
Default

What I find interesting is the lack of empirical evidence either way.

The government and Genetic Engineering companies say "GE is way cool, and doesn't hurt people!"

Those opposed, liberals mainly, say "Yes it does! Look at what this GE Tomatoe with fish genes did to my skin!"

Then the government says, "You're just making that up! All our research says . . . blah."

The opposition replies, "Our research, done independently and not biased by money says . . . blah! (Blah = People have died from some specific strain of GE food or supplement or pesticides.)"

The GE companies say, "BAH! That's rubbish! No one has died, you can ask the people themselves!"

My college text book, "Writing Arguments." Actually used this specific topic to point out what not to do when trying to convice people of something, and also what to do when trying to increase alarm with those you know are already sympathetic to your cause.

I personally think that like every other form of science, it has its good and bad repercussions, we just have to be extremely cautious because we are never in control when nature is concerned.
__________________
"Oh sheep swallop! Sheep swallop and bloody buttered onions!" - Mat Cauthon - Wheel of Time.

Save the trees, eat the cows! - me

"YOU SPOONY BARD!" - Tellah FFIV

"If we had ham we could have ham and cheese sandwiches, if we had cheese." - Endymion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pictish
Except it was more like someone took a crap actress, wrote her a script in crap and got her to say it in bullshit.
Staizer is offline Add to Staizer's Reputation  
Unread 06-09-2005, 01:40 AM   #10
Lucas
Shotokan Master
 
Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 529
Lucas is an unknown quantity at this point.
Default

Quote:
"Yes it does! Look at what this GE Tomatoe with fish genes did to my skin!"
The calgene flavrsavr did not have fish genes, and did the atlantic trout/tomato hybrid fare well in clinical trials: that tomato NEVER got to the public.

This misconception is very common and appears quite often in anti-GE material. the so-called "fishberry" is another fabrication.
Lucas is offline Add to Lucas's Reputation  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 AM.
The server time is now 02:41:01 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.