Would you eat these GM eggs under a doctor's recommendation

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
68,711
28,503
Colorado
Man, if only the science nerds could come up w/ a way to plant crops so they could work together symbolically. Then they could create plants that took different nutrients from the soil. If they could do something like planting different crops different years. Man...thats a billion dollar idea. You can have it. ;)
Capital idea there Sabcat!! I wonder, will anyone will try it?

I gotta jump on the fake news bandwagon concerning "organic" vs. "chemical-based" agriculture. I think almost all the corporate reporting on the benefits of chemical-based agriculture is fake news. I instinctively do not trust "consumer advocacy" organizations dissing "organic" farming with names like The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). Doesn't that sound so nice, so science-based? The American Council on Science and Health is a pro-corporate advocacy organization funded by ........ guess who??

I know organic farmers. I've grown organic gardens since the mid 70s. I showed my dad, who instilled my love of growing food, how to grow beautiful tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, and melons in Houston without dusting them with diazinon or malathion. He was amazed.

I've watched how bugs go after weak plants and leave the strong ones alone. I've watched the predators appear and feast on the weak plants' bugs, and how they then keep the occasional bug off the strong plants.

I've watched western Colorado fruit orchards go organic. I just bought some beautiful crackling sweet organic Honeycrisp apples for $1.69/lb. The "non-organic" Honeycrisps were $3.49/lb. So even the "cost more" myth is just that: a myth.

I watched how it took the orchard owners some time to make the switch. It takes time to restore the predator population, but it can be done.

And then, there's the connection that modern, "science-based" logical folk just can't seem to accept. Plants turn shit into food. Right now, humans measure "civilization" by how well they hide their shit. Instead of using it to grow food, we pollute water with it, and add nitrogen to the ubiquitous dead zones around the mouths of our rivers.

Absolutely nothing is better than shit for growing healthy plants and improving the soil structure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sabcat
May 2018
4,505
3,489
USA
Essentially ALL FOODS are GMO. Every fruit/vegetable has been tweaked many, many times genetically to make them 1) more resistant to plant diseases, 2) more resistant to drought, etc. Consider that tomatoes were originally a tiny fruit (about the size of a kumquat) and considered to be poisonous until the High Middle Ages. Today's tomatoes range up to softball-size and are delicious (also due to aggressive "breeding"). You could say "yeah, but what about animals". Animal husbandry has been a thing for literally thousands of years.

People complaining about GMOs are simply ignorant of that fact that pretty much everything they've ever eaten was genetically modified. Don't blame me, blame Gregor Mendel.
 
Last edited:

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
68,711
28,503
Colorado
The only difference is that the "naturally" occurring mutations are random.
No sir, you missed the point.

Hybridization occurs within species, and sometimes within a genus. although often those crosses are sterile, like a mule.

GMOs involve genetic engineering techniques. The most common definition of a GMO is an organism that "does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination." Selective breeding, what humans have practiced for thousands of years, results in hybrids, varieties of a species.

To be clear, genetic engineering is not by definition bad or harmful, but by the same token GMOs are not inherently beneficial .... except perhaps to the bottom line of Big Agra.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sabcat
Jun 2018
1,064
345
Toronto
No sir, you missed the point.

Hybridization occurs within species, and sometimes within a genus. although often those crosses are sterile, like a mule.

GMOs involve genetic engineering techniques. The most common definition of a GMO is an organism that "does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination." Selective breeding, what humans have practiced for thousands of years, results in hybrids, varieties of a species.

To be clear, genetic engineering is not by definition bad or harmful, but by the same token GMOs are not inherently beneficial .... except perhaps to the bottom line of Big Agra.

Or if it can cure you from cancer ...

:rolleyes:
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
68,711
28,503
Colorado
Essentially ALL FOODS are GMO. Every fruit/vegetable has been tweaked many, many times genetically to make them 1) more resistant to plant diseases, 2) more resistant to drought, etc. Consider that tomatoes were originally a tiny fruit (about the size of a kumquat) and considered to be poisonous until the High Middle Ages. Today's tomatoes range up to softball-size and are delicious (also do to aggressive "breeding"). You could say "yeah, but what about animals". Animal husbandry has been a thing for literally thousands of years.

People complaining about GMOs are simply ignorant of that fact that pretty much everything they've ever eaten was genetically modified. Don't blame me, blame Gregor Mendel.
DAMMIT. Transgenic species have never occurred in nature, nor before humans perfected methods of gene splicing.

The claim that all foods are GMO is an example of fake news.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
68,711
28,503
Colorado
Or if it can cure you from cancer ...

:rolleyes:
A lot of cancer curing claims are made. Caancer curing claims are the hole card that's supposed to silence debate. Pffffftttt.

Do you have any examples? I dug into the cancer-fighting GMO eggs earlier in the thread, so let me save you some time. The claims for cancer-curing eggs are not only unfounded, they're deceptive. The interferon-mimicking compounds being proposed for GMO eggs have dubious cancer-fighting efficacy, and do have a laundry list of negative side effects.

But I'll bet ya this: Those eggs would cost ya some big bucks, and make some big bucks for someone.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
68,711
28,503
Colorado
Making big bucks is bad why precisely? In pharma genetic engineering is common. Example:

Baker's Yeast Genetically Engineered to Produce Penicillin

In caves they lived and died quite naturally.
History is filled with examples of why making money as the first directive, a feature of unregulated capitalism, is bad.

The thousands of Colorado's abandoned mines leaking toxic heavy metals into streams and ground water is one example.

The thalidomide babies of 50s are another.

Making big bucks sometimes is a good thing. Sometimes it's not

And it's tragic that you bring up penicillin, though I'm sure you don't see why. The rise an fall of the antibiotic culture, another failed, non-sustainable technology, with amazing, even miraculous results at first, followed by tragic results later.

The Antibiotic Resistance Crisis

Genes linked to antibiotic-resistant superbugs found in Arctic

‘Antibiotic apocalypse’: doctors sound alarm over drug resistance
The terrifying prospect that even routine operations will be impossible to perform has been raised by experts alarmed by the rise of drug-resistant gene
 
Jun 2018
1,064
345
Toronto
I never said unregulated or untested. In this particular case with the eggs it's a new method for cheap production of known and tried substances. Antibiotics save millions of lives despite the growing resistance.

Of course we should be cautious, but innovation is a pretty good thing if used properly.
 
May 2018
7,122
4,959
Chicago
Some on this board are unsure about the safety of GM foods. Some are convinced they are bad.

This report from the BBC says that through GM, chickens are laying eggs that contain drugs that can treat arthritis and cancer. And that this means of producing them is way cheaper than through industrial chemical methods.

My guess is that they would be purer also. Plus, I like eggs.

The chickens that lay anti-cancer drugs
No. I would not eat those eggs.