We humans specifically selected genes that resulted in uniform and consistent popping, texture, and appearance.

Monsatan has done a very good job conflating those two things in the public discourse (it is their way).

There are many ways to do genetic modification. Selective breeding is one of them.

Grafting, as in producing every single commercially-grown apple, is another...(It makes genetic variations that can not do well on their own work)

Chemical mutagens, as used in producing seedless watermelon, is another.

Radioactive mutagens, as used in producing red grapefruit, is another.

And various "gene editing" techniques are another.

The gene 'editing' is the only one i am against, because the other techniques can all happen in the natural processes of evolution. Gene splicing does not occur between two completely different species in nature.

If you're going to argue the science, at least know the science.

If you are going to argue science, know the correct terminology.
Edit: please show me any evidence that horizontal gene transfer can occur between species or in multicellular organisms

But when it happens to humans it's almost always a bad thing. Yes, hurray for mitochondria. But that happened billions of years ago. Modern gene splicing is a lot more like HIV: a retroviral infection that invades the host genes.

CRISPR means you know exactly what is going to happen and where it is going to happen.

You not understanding something does not mean no one understands it.

fish genes waft over and just naturally splice themselves into the tomatoes and strawberries. BT toxin genes just fly over and find themselves embedded in soy and corn plants. What serendipity for monsatan and mankind!

/sarcasm

You people know exactly what is meant with reference to GMO. You know damned well that the reference is not to natural methods of seed selection so it would be nice if you just stopped playing stupid mind games with the terminology.

there are a few GMO zealots around here - they are a funny lot

its always the same few using the exact same buzzwords, that start tag teaming as soon as there is any conversation to do with GMO's.

They can sometimes be funny, sometimes be as annoying as mosquitos... and always be so very predictable.

By the addition of genes to enable the synthesizing of beta-carotene in the endosperm. One gene came from daffodils and another from a soil bacterium. While it has the potential to save eyesights and even lives, it has been field-tested but not yet commercially grown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

I think there is a tendency to dismiss GMOs as uniformly bad. That is unfortunate and reveals a deep ignorance of the science. In fact I would equate knee jerk anti-GMOs stances as equivalent to climate change denial, because it exists despite the evidence.

Not all science experiments are good, and some are downright bad. I prefer having my GMOs labeled. Sorry, but I am never going to say that Monsanto is good. There are plenty of science to say that Monsanto and other seed like that is really bad not only for people, but also for the planet.

Z

I just want it on the label.

And since it was modified to be pest resistant i can't recommend it

to be able to afford store food, not to mention all the transportation costs involved, how about helping them be healthier and increase their chances of survival?

Somehow, they don't realize that their excuses have been explored, and are continuing to be explored. And that those excuses should not be stopping a plant that can help.

If I Were A Food Activist
http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/11/food-activist/

Perhaps people should be more clear about what they mean rather than use ridiculous generic germs like "GMO"?

I find a shocking array of people spouting the identical meme. When you control 80% of the nation's food supply, you also control a giant pile of money to buy opinions.

No, selective breeding does not in any way resemble genetic modification in the Monsanto sense. GMO doesn't recombine whole chromosomes of the same species (as breeding does); usually it doesn't even combine nice whole genes. Introducing a gene that crosses species typically introduces a lot more than one gene - it's not a nice targeted process. It's bits of this and shreds of that, and you grow thousands of seeds to get one that isn't too crippled to survive. If the one trait you wanted happens to be in there, then "woo" you have a product. It may also contain defective genes that produce toxins, or allergen genes from the source species. And it will take decades of human experimentation, now being performed on us, to actually see the effects. Some are becoming visible now; others will require more deaths before we can correlate them.

He/she has been shown the science several times, but just repeats the usual anti-GMO mantras, again and again.

instead of letting the profit-taking on Organic products remain unchallenged.

"Big food" is not only on one side of this battle.

...and Monsanto is overpaying you.

I've heard of mules. And jackasses. Mules have seriously impaired fertility (near zero). That's about as good as it gets with interbreeding different species. And the source species in that case (and the plant cases you allude to) are actually very closely related. That is not similar to the usual case with gene splicing.

Sure, the gene-splicers are looking for one gene. But whether they find it (without incorporating others) is another matter. The process is way more random than you'd like us to believe. I'm not talking about whether the target gene is whole; I'm talking about the random fragments of other genes, incorporated into random chromosomes, that inevitably result from gene splicing technology. Damaged genes produce damaged proteins. And whole, unintended genes, produce whole, unintended results, either in the resulting chimera species, or in those unfortunate enough to consume it.

I am not conflating chemical and radiological mutations with gene splicing. Yes, those also produce horrific offspring. But don't tell me gene-splicing isn't random. I've been reading about it for decades (mainly before I realized it was going to be used against me). Typical methods involve firing a blast of the new gene into cells with, essentially, a microscopic shotgun, or gluing the new gene onto a virus and infecting the victim cells. Newer methods such as CRISPR are somewhat more targeted, but still introduce genes, not chromosomes, and the long-term effects are unknown (see the definition of long term).

Breeding is like shuffling two similar decks of cards (chromosomes) together and selecting a new deck with the right number of cards. GMO manufacturing is like throwing a deck of cards and an "Old Maid" deck into a blender with some water and making papier mâché.

Yes dude I've heard of mutation, and yes I know the story of mitochondria and similar cross-species events, but those are exceptions, not the norm. I'm obviously not advocating that we ban cosmic rays or the natural world of micro-organisms. I am advocating that we be allowed to know how our food has been tampered with.

Go peddle your snake oil to some gullible rubes, say over at donaldjtrump.com.

All commercial plants that are resistant to glyphosate are "GMO"s, but not all "GMO"s are resistant to glyphosate.

It's clear that you are really against "Round-Up Ready", so argue for labeling to show that, instead of mindless, fearful calls for a meaningless "GMO" label.

history used the best of the crop to produce the best result. But that is not genetics.

So are you saying that we are NOW using the gmo method?

Actually, it is.

Your response illuminates the root of the whole GMO scare: ignorance. Ignorance about what genes are. Ignorance about what they do. Ignorance about how they can be manipulated, changed, introduced, and/or removed.

We are most scared of that which we do not understand. I have yet to meet someone who has bought into the GMO fearmongering who actually understands what genetic modification means.

between hybridizing a crop or animal and what we are calling GMO today.

The first deals with recognizing the quality of genes and duplicating them. The second deals with actually changing the genes.

If you don't actually change the genes, you get a clone of what you started with.

that I am saying there is a difference all you want. I am really not that interested in how the GMO method is going. And of course there is a gene change even we humans do that every time we produce a child but there is nothing artificial about it.

over what traits can be expressed by directly manipulating the DNA in question. With other methods, its more scattershot and has more guesswork involved, the plant may exhibit traits you want to further breed, but also may carry recessive, undesirable traits that may manifest in later generations, or have unintended secondary traits that are undesirable, even dangerous for human consumption, etc.

GMO is not just like hybridizing.

Selective breeding is not just like hybridizing.

Induced mutation is not just like hybridizing.

In vitro cultivation is not just like hybridizing.

These things have different names because they are not just like each other, and within each of these things there are a variety of methods by which they may be accomplished.

All of these things involve "actually changing the genes", and all of them are unnatural which is kind of the whole point.

Really, you need to inform yourself so that meaningful discussion can be had on the topic.

"The first deals with recognizing the quality of genes and duplicating them" - Not sure how to tell you this, but that is *exactly* what you think you're fighting against. A gene is found with the qualities desired - for example, a gene to produce vitamin A. That gene is duplicated in a plant in order to have it produce vitamin A. As in the wonderful product called "golden rice," which can provide vital nutrition to millions of people, preventing blindness and other terrible conditions.

http://www.goldenrice.org/

Golden Rice was a winner of one of the White House Patents for Humanity awards last year. Pretty cool, huh?

I keep blocking them and they keep popping up like, oh, a genetically mutated monster with many heads.

And I personally dislike arguments based on nothing but fear, doubt and ignorance.

I am trying to be exact here. " used the best of the crop to produce the best result" IS genetics. So is the Darwin award.

GMO involves inserting foreign DNA into a crop to get desired traits. Selective breeding involves taking two plants (or animals) of the same species who have the traits you desire and mating them to get those traits, which may or may not show up in the offspring.

We genetically modify something when we breed it. "GMO" covers an extremely broad range of techniques we humans have discovered.

Yes, there is such a thing as breeding and if you contort your brain a little, you might be able to retrofit the old practice into the terminology invented to describe a completely different new practice. That doesn't make us foolish enough to conflate the two very different things together.

Peddle your snake oil elsewhere, Monsanto.

But I'm not going to respond to someone who has nothing but name-calling to offer. That's a sure sign you can't support your own argument.

Good day.

Avoid all popcorn

AIEEEE!!!

Wish we could ban that to creative speculation like the old days

Scroll down the page and notice how creme-de-la-nutbag, Mike Adams pays homage to his yogic flying guru, Jeffrey Smith.

You want to see the best one?

http://www.amazon.com/Salt-Himalayan-Gourmet-Chemicals-Non-gmo/dp/B007PR93EU

Screw that poison, then - I care about what I put in my body...


(That's got to be a joke, right? Please?)

I don't know if the label is a joke or just a way to play on the "everything in my diet has to be GMO-free" crowd, but the product is real enough.

I only consume Non-GMO, Organic, Lactose Free, Gluten Free, Nut Free, Sugar Free, Vegan, Low Fat, Fair Trade Himalayan Salt...

I have a stapler on my desk that is also Non-GMO

Bad for your teeth, bad for the rest of you, too.

http://foodbabe.com/2013/11/12/microwave-popcorn/

Even though there are no sources of genetically modified popcorn kernels being produced (that’s saved for other varieties of corn), there are several other GMO ingredients in the form of oil or emulsifiers to be found in these popcorn flavors. GMOs have never been tested long term on human beings and are linked to a slew of health issues that are rising in this country. All of these brands do not use organic corn either, so you can be sure they contain harmful pesticides.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to her that acetic acid is found in Elmer's glue so she needs to start a campaign to remove this lethal chemical from our food supply, like she did with her "yoga mat bread" lie.

She is getting on the back of the corporations big time.

That was one heck of a confession.

-- Vani Hari

The Food Babe and other nonsense
http://ianchadwick.com/blog/the-food-babe-and-other-nonsense/

The Food Babe Took Down Her Goofy Microwave Oven Post - Science Win
http://www.science20.com/cool-links/the_food_babe_took_down_her_goofy_microwave_oven_post_science_win-140892

The Food Babe Ban List
https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/the-food-babe-ban-list/

This damn fool came down with appendicitis, decided it was her diet (and not...well, you know, because appendixes are nature's way of culling the herd) that caused it, and launched her career as a professional bully.

One of her big things is, "no one should ever eat chemicals." In some cases that's absolutely true - arsenic, potassium cyanide, and diethylene glycol are chemicals, and only someone with a death wish should eat any of those. Alternately, acetic acid, methionine and cyanocobalamin are chemicals and it's perfectly safe to eat them all. And I wonder if she knows that ALL bright-red lipsticks contain lead. All of them, without exception; it's part of the pigment that makes the product bright red.

now, elemental potassium would be bad to eat, best to eat it in one of a variety of different molecular forms, such as salts.

an excellent example is the whole anti-vax claim that mercury in vaccines is causing autism, first of it doesn't, and second, the mercury in the vaccines aren't in a form that can cause harm to humans. But try to explain that to some people and they give you a blank look. Kinda like eating a compound of extremely hazardous gas and and explosive(in water) metal is something everyone consumes on a regular basis.

The sad part is that the campaign against "mercury in vaccines" has been somewhat successful, even though its based on nothing more than ignorance and fear. The preservative in question is very useful in making sure the vaccines don't spoil, a concern for distributing them in places of the world with spotty electric coverage.

I figure you knew that, but you were so understated with your "bad to eat" line, it made me chuckle. Thanks

again, it would be very bad for you and would just ruin your day.

People pay a lot of money for food "a flambé," so with one minor problem you could make a REALLY cool self-igniting dish by coating food in oil then, in an argon atmosphere under a metal cover, sprinkling a little potassium metal on the food. When the cover is lifted, the argon dissipates and the potassium metal catches on fire. VERY cool effect.

The minor problem is burning potassium in humid air produces potash, the eating of which is very bad for you.

Arsenic is an essential element required for normal bodily functions. All of the other things you mentioned have an acceptable level of intake below which no adverse effects can be expected. The dose is what makes the poison.

Thanks for posting those links.

though. IIRC though, they were supposed to phase out perfluorooctanoic acid in the bag lining by last year. Still does not address the shit-ton of crappy oils and other chemicals.

I usually use duck fat and a wok to pop it. I don't really have a preference on what brand of kernels we use. They all seem to pop the same.

Things I will not eat
Canned tomatoes
Corn-fed beef
Non-Organic Potatoes
Farmed Salmon
Microwave Popcorn
Milk where the cows were treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone.
Non-Fermented Soy
Apples

I just don't like them. They are evil, they get stuck in my teeth, they are too sweet, so I end up with a sugar crash after eating them.

Apples = bad
All other fruit = good

I hate them. They can go back to hell and burn for all eternity...

Last edited Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Heck, there are now GMO potatoes that are safer to cook.

Potatoes are sponges, so cleaning or even peeling may not remove

During the growing process they are treated with fungicides and sprayed with herbicides. Then after the harvest they are treated in another process to prevent sprouting.

I recall reading the USDA's PDP article several years ago and there were several chemicals present that were higher than standards set by the EPA. Primarily DDT.

How would it save from your worries?

Simple example: The use of Diazinon is not an approved insecticide in Organic farming. It is however approved in commercial farming. I'd not use it if I were growing potatoes at home, nor do I want to consume it from store bought potatoes as well.

I could care less if it's used to grow plants with an impermeable skin. You can simply wash it off. So if I were growing or buying tomatoes, I'd probably not worry about its use.

It took you two hours to come up with that?

Different products, but that doesn't mean they're any safer. Oh, and your anecdote about washing has nothing to do with anything. That "Onion" act is wearing thin at the knees.

You're asking why I personally choose to source certain foods from certain locations based on the information available to me.

Not sure what the issue is witch choosing to not have a food with permeable skin sprayed with chemicals that can and do get into the flesh.

On Edit: I noticed in post 88 you mentioned that there are GMO potatoes that are safer to cook. How are they safer?

I get that you're pro GMO based on posts in this thread. I have no issue with that. Genetically engineering can be quite positive.

Look at the Innate Potato which has been genetically engineered to be more impervious to bruising, and to reduce the chemical Acrylamide when fried is awesome. You give me that potato, with no absorbed chemical fungicides, pesticides, or herbicides that are known and probable carcinogens and I'm happy. My issue is chemical use, not the selective genes of the end product. This is a perfect example of a product when processed without chemicals actually gives you a better product.

So an insecticide that is sprayed on the top of the plant is not going to touch the tuber. So while it may be possible for some of it to be absorbed through the plant and into the tuber, this would also be a concern for a tomato. Things like DDT, if they are present at all, would be just as likely in conventional vs organic because that product is no longer used for food production.

Chlorpropham is the anti-sprouting chemical used. It is non-carcinogenic and has an extremely low toxicity level which is about the same as table salt, yet the maximum dosage you could ever expect to receive from a single serving of potatoes is measured in micrograms and around 300 times lower than what the EPA's acceptable daily intake which is already many times lower than what can be expected to harm you in any way.

As far as pesticides go, you should have greater concern for those used in organic food production. For instance, you mentioned fungicide. One of the only effective organic fungicides available is copper sulfate. Now is copper sulfate really a concern as a pesticide residue on food? Not really. However, there's no question it's far more toxic and far less regulated than comparable products not approved for organic farming. It's also far less effective and far more persistent in the environment. This means farmers use more of it and it doesn't break down as readily.

It's important to remember that the term "organic" is nothing more than a marketing term with no regulations that address nutrition or safety.

I still don't consider popcorn to be 'food', it's more of an excuse to eat something between meals or, even worse, in place of a healthy meal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

Plus it has practically no nutritional value so it takes the place of 'real' food. And it's especially bad for your teeth.
https://www.newbeauty.com/blog/dailybeauty/8364-how-popcorn-leads-to-tooth-damage/

Popcorn is one of the worst dental offenders. “Its not just the kernels that are bad for your teeth, but also the thin shell that surrounds the kernel,” says Chevy Chase, MD cosmetic dentist Claudia C. Cotca, DDS. “Oftentimes, it slides off and gets lodged between the gums and teeth, easily going unnoticed.” If it isn't removed in time, it can cause bone loss and possibly the loss of the tooth, too. “If left undisturbed, decay can cause cavities, abscess and tooth loss, and can also shift your bite and change your smile,” adds New York cosmetic dentist Irwin Smigel, DDS.

And if you fill up on popcorn or something else, you may not be hungry for the benefits that accrue from 'real' food, like fruits and vegetables.

I'm no saint when it comes to food but I am a food minimalist and I've gotten quite accustomed to ignoring that emptiness in my stomach between meals. To my way of thinking, that's a better approach than 'giving in' to slight hunger pangs. Especially when you know -YOU KNOW- that you aren't going to pass out or die from malnutrition if you wait a couple more hours.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

I eat about 5 or 6 times a day. Only having one full meal at dinner. Snacking is perfectly fine.

And our bodies need salt and fat, so of course they are bad for us too.

In fact, any food you find pleasurable, is bad for you, because our bodies are trying to trick us into being unhealthy. It's totally not that modern food processing techniques trick the reward centers in our brain into eating crap, by mimicking nutritional food that allowed the human race to survive and prosper.

It's important to be unhappy and neurotic about what you eat, and to feel guilty about everything you eat that's not part of a fad diet or the latest poorly reported news of a study that fudges the details and may or may not even be true.

It's the only way to be healthy.

Fiber is important. So is nutrition. Popcorn has no nutritional value. It's 'filler' food.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

If you're going to post a link, at least post one that's credible. Nowhere in that blog post does she post credible links to her assertions. They either hyperlink to her own blog posts or to other blogs, not to any peer reviewed studies.

Ugh. People are suckers.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

Apparently, I failed.

Not GMO if you count gene splicing in a lab.

Has been genetically modified for centuries.

enough for Monsatan and its similar companies to fuck with the genetic code.

Jesus, the ignorance surrounding this subject is stupefying.

and you know this