Yarr!

True Science vs Propaganda.

Weclome Masakari.

aldo wrote:But they're unnatural!!111oneeleventy

Bit like the whole organic food thing. When you you think of it on the global scale, the one thing we need to do in the world today is improve crop yields, not reduce them by throwing away a century of agricultural progress.

Ah yes, but then there's the moral dilema. Do I really want dog genes spliced into my grapes so that I get twice the grape I would if I lived in the 17th century? I think not. You know why? Because I never asked for dog (or anything else) in my grapes except grapes, damnit, nor do I appreciate the idea of snacking on any such thing. It's downright unethical, or some such. And as far as none-gene splicing problems, what about health problems related to artificials? Like monosodium-glutamate? That eats ayway your stomach lining. Yellow 5 is said to have negative effects on the brain, and *ahem* elsewhere. The drugs they inject into cows are--well, point being, there's a lot of information to point in either direction.

(As for dog genes being spliced into grapes, I've merely heard rumors. The rumors weren't about dogs necessarily, anyway.)

How the hell did I get onto this subject anyway?

And, thank you for the welcome, Grug! Much appreciated.

Welcomes. ^.^

Personally I don't mind the idea of genetically altered food. I'm a man of science at heart, and am always for progress.

Sure there are going to be problems at first. But the same can be said with any new technology or industry equipment or process when it was first developed.

I cringe at the idea of it being corporatly motivated however. With funding restrictions and companies pushing for a finalized product of course there is going to be corner's cut and assumptions made on side effects.

In a perfect world, I would of liked to see government funding of science projects related to human welfare. With long term experiments and safety procedures to ensure possible side effects can be mostly counted for and corrected.

When you think about it, we are on a frontier of science these days. I find it quite exciting.

When it comes to genetics and splicing, you can't really think of it as them as growing tomatoes on dogs, that's not how it works. I agree there are some moral implications attached, but for the most part I think they are acceptable for the greater gain society attains from it.

But I'm all for freedom of choice too, so you go ahead and keep eating your organic food.
I'll be eating my rot free, bug resistant, super juicy, strength giving genetically altered fruit.

Masakari wrote:Ah yes, but then there's the moral dilema. Do I really want dog genes spliced into my grapes so that I get twice the grape I would if I lived in the 17th century? I think not. You know why? Because I never asked for dog (or anything else) in my grapes except grapes, damnit, nor do I appreciate the idea of snacking on any such thing. It's downright unethical, or some such.

Thing is you have to ask what gene it is. It isn't as simple as saying this is a dog gene or some such.

For instance there is a certain gene we have that exist in vitually the same form in peas. The difference between the two amounts to nothing more than a couple of base pairs. Now if changing that gene in the pea to resemble to one in humans was done have you really inserted a human gene into the pea? Or have you simply swapped a couple of base pairs?

The fact is that cross breeding does more genetic mixing than any amount of work on GMOs ever does but yet that gets done all the time with no scientific testing nor any thoughts about how it will lead to a superweed etc.

Masakari wrote:

aldo wrote:But they're unnatural!!111oneeleventy

Bit like the whole organic food thing. When you you think of it on the global scale, the one thing we need to do in the world today is improve crop yields, not reduce them by throwing away a century of agricultural progress.

Ah yes, but then there's the moral dilema. Do I really want dog genes spliced into my grapes so that I get twice the grape I would if I lived in the 17th century? I think not. You know why? Because I never asked for dog (or anything else) in my grapes except grapes, damnit, nor do I appreciate the idea of snacking on any such thing. It's downright unethical, or some such. And as far as none-gene splicing problems, what about health problems related to artificials? Like monosodium-glutamate? That eats ayway your stomach lining. Yellow 5 is said to have negative effects on the brain, and *ahem* elsewhere. The drugs they inject into cows are--well, point being, there's a lot of information to point in either direction.

(As for dog genes being spliced into grapes, I've merely heard rumors. The rumors weren't about dogs necessarily, anyway.)

How the hell did I get onto this subject anyway?

And, thank you for the welcome, Grug! Much appreciated.

Firstly, worth noting non-organic != GM food.

Secondly, worth noting what GM food is for; increased yields through disease resistance, improved growth in poor environments, faster growth, decreased greenhouse gas (from farming machinery), etc. GM food is primarily through use of genes from other plants - very similar to cross-breeding, this. There is already not enough food being grown in the world to feed everyone; and organic food reduces crop yields whilst that global population grows. Whilst I'd agree that the world is getting overpopulated, I'd rather not reduce that population through mass starvation, and GM-modifying food (for example, wheat that can thrive in more arid conditions) can be the key weapon in preventing famine in the 3rd world.

It's also worth considering what DNA is. A section of DNA does not remain 'dog' outside of the genome; at the heart of it all DNA is, is a set of chromosomes that act as 'addresses' for pairs of bases (guanine -cytosine, or adenine-thymine), which code some instruction such as building a protein. There's nothing that says 'be a dog', it's just that the consequence of putting all these parts together results in a dog. But, we're only taking a few instructions in any case, so we're really only taking the 'grow fast' part or so and adding it in place of a 'grow slow'. Additionally, it's worth bearing in mind there is a massive commonality between DNA; the fruit fly and human, for example, share 60% of their DNA in common. It's not like the over-used 'frankenstein foods' analogy.

Incidentally, AFAIK side-effects of monosodium-glutamate only occur in an intolerant/allergic sector of the population; this is why it is regarded as generally safe but must be specifically identified on packaging. Plus, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, here; any technology (additives or GM food) is susceptible to misuse.

The problem is, you can never really figure out the full impact of things like GM Food, you'd have to have a phase space that's as complex as the world it's representing. Care has been taken in many way (I believe all GM Food must contain a gene telling them not to reproduce). However, over-reliance on GM Food could be very dangerous in it's own right.

Corn that is designed to grow, say, in semi-desert regions might seem a wonderful idea, and would solve a lot of problems in Africa, but that is a purely naive view of the whole politcal structure. People remember, I'm sure, the case of Nestle giving free powdered milk to nursing mothers? It would be the same thing, those who lack the technology being beholden to those who do. Much better, in my opinon, to help Africa advance its technology to use what it already has, irrigation, water farming etc, and teach people to be self-sufficient. Else you simply replace one kind of need with another. GM Crops can solve immediate problems of world hunger, but they are a stop-gap, not a solution.

Perhaps the horrible dihydrogen monoxide should be proposed to be banned again...

I find it fascinating how concerned people are about additives (artificial or not) in modern world.. There are imho a lot of much worse things in foods than additives, and additives happen to be controlled (in EU at least). And there are actually safety boundaries for most of the additives existing.

Having studied for additives, (fungal and other) toxins, pesticides (and other unwanted compounds), larvae or parasites, biogenic amines, and many other 'wondrous' things that are found from foods i believe additives (artificial or not) are not the greatest risk.. Who would even be so naive that would think that all the natural staff we eat was actually ment to be eaten. For example some plants do have chemical defenses.

But there are risks with additives too.. for example the safety limits for sweeteners (like aspartame) were not calculated for the nerd generation who lives (and most likely) dies by their computers with <insert brand name here> Light bottle and pizza delivery box pile on their side.

Wanderer wrote:But there are risks with additives too.. for example the safety limits for sweeteners (like aspartame) were not calculated for the nerd generation who lives (and most likely) dies by their computers with <insert brand name here> Light bottle and pizza delivery box pile on their side.

Ugh...who wants aspartame when you can have sugar?

Flipside wrote:The problem is, you can never really figure out the full impact of things like GM Food, you'd have to have a phase space that's as complex as the world it's representing. Care has been taken in many way (I believe all GM Food must contain a gene telling them not to reproduce). However, over-reliance on GM Food could be very dangerous in it's own right.

Corn that is designed to grow, say, in semi-desert regions might seem a wonderful idea, and would solve a lot of problems in Africa, but that is a purely naive view of the whole politcal structure. People remember, I'm sure, the case of Nestle giving free powdered milk to nursing mothers? It would be the same thing, those who lack the technology being beholden to those who do. Much better, in my opinon, to help Africa advance its technology to use what it already has, irrigation, water farming etc, and teach people to be self-sufficient. Else you simply replace one kind of need with another. GM Crops can solve immediate problems of world hunger, but they are a stop-gap, not a solution.

Oh, yeah, but even with a properly irrigated 3rd world you'd still hit problems with crop yields, so we have to do something. Obviously I'd never want the worlds poverty & famine problems left for the likes of Monsanto to solve.

See, I think the only way to be completey safe, is to be dead. So, there you have it. Stop eating, and you shan't have to worry about any of this!

I'm am of the opinon that if one simply utilizes food properly, it will be beneficial. In my opinon the world (More specifically the pammpered morons who live in my country.) is irrisponsible when it comes to the food they eat. There are many different things which determine what it is we should be eating. For instance, blood type. There are specific foods which are more, or less beneficial to each blood type. There are about a million factors which determine what, where, when, why and how you should eat whatever it is you're eating, or not eating.

Personally, I find that there are many things which one simply shouldn't consume (Apart from the usually things, like rocks and live animals, and all the other givens.), such as purified white sugar. Honey is much better for you. That doesn't mean that in order to make up for that fact that my grape nuts aren't coated with surgar, I dump half a gallon of honey on it, but that honey could simply replace sugar. Stuff like that. Doritos, for instance--they have very little nutritional value. Making some nachoes with real cheese would be way better for you. Point being, there's no way to be safe, but you can always be safer.

Yeah, I would agree that the western world's dietry intake needs to be more educated or something. I'd love to receive new ideas for what to cook for dinner etc. I should be a chef.

Anyone else find it highly amusing that the thread has gone from canabalism and fetish's to genetically engineered food and dietry intake?

Yes, actually, I do find that amusing. I suppose, though, assuming they we were to continue in that direction, we could talk about the rumors of the human genes spliced into the food, that would be a form of cannibalism from a certain point of view, yes?

Masakari wrote:Yes, actually, I do find that amusing. I suppose, though, assuming they we were to continue in that direction, we could talk about the rumors of the human genes spliced into the food, that would be a form of cannibalism from a certain point of view, yes?

I think everything can be seen as a form of cannibalism from a certain point of view.....

Yes! And everything is edible, from a certain point of view! Like the contents of a neutron star. I might have the ability to eat said contents, thereby making them edible.

We and everything on this planet are all stardust anyway.