Never mind GMO's.

[Loudmouth]

Yes there are,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/rice_humans/

What human parts are in rice?

Of course; do you recognize that some things that serve as evidence to you may or may not be evidence to me, and vice versa?

Then it isn't evidence. As the old saying goes, you have a right to your own opinions but not your own facts.

 

[ananda]

What human parts are in rice?

Human liver genes.

Then it isn't evidence. As the old saying goes, you have a right to your own opinions but not your own facts.

If I talk about what I see to a man who was blind from birth, is it right for him to say "it's not evidence"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Human liver genes.

Are these genes only found in the liver? (the answer is no, by the way)

Also, genes are not human parts.

If I talk about what I see to a man who was blind from birth, is it right for him to say "it's not evidence"?

A blind man can use instruments to detect light, just as we do for photons outside of our visual range. You should be able to demonstrate that light exists to a blind man just like we can show that infrared exists, even though we can't see it.

That is, unless, the claims you are making refer to things that don't exist.

 

[ananda]

Are these genes only found in the liver? (the answer is no, by the way) Also, genes are not human parts.

"Phytoremediation of metolachlor by transgenic rice plants expressing human CYP2B6"

Looks like a human part to me.

A blind man can use instruments to detect light, just as we do for photons outside of our visual range. You should be able to demonstrate that light exists to a blind man just like we can show that infrared exists, even though we can't see it. That is, unless, the claims you are making refer to things that don't exist.

You are talking about knowledge of the effects of things, not knowledge of the things themselves. By your argument, you cannot claim to demonstrate the existence of things like "love" or "hate". You can only demonstrate their possible effects, which I could attribute to another cause.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Phytoremediation of metolachlor by transgenic rice plants expressing human CYP2B6"

Looks like a human part to me.

Then show me a picture of what it looks like.

You are talking about knowledge of the effects of things, not knowledge of the things themselves. By your argument, you cannot claim to demonstrate the existence of things like "love" or "hate". You can only demonstrate their possible effects, which I could attribute to another cause.

We can break down love and hate into neurotransmitters, if you like. For example, this is the neurochemistry of love, the actual cause of love itself. This is what it is.

"The conventional view in biology is that there are three major drives in love – sex drive, attachment, and partner preference.[8][9] The primary neurochemicals (neurotransmitters, sex hormones, and neuropeptides) that govern these drives are testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love#Neurochemistry

 

[ananda]

Then show me a picture of what it looks like.

We can break down love and hate into neurotransmitters, if you like. For example, this is the neurochemistry of love, the actual cause of love itself. This is what it is.

"The conventional view in biology is that there are three major drives in love – sex drive, attachment, and partner preference.[8][9] The primary neurochemicals (neurotransmitters, sex hormones, and neuropeptides) that govern these drives are testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love#Neurochemistry

That's not evidence, that's your own interpretation.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not evidence, that's your own interpretation.

Those are facts. Period. We have the science showing how these neurotransmitters produce emotions.

Also, it isn't enough to call something an interpretation. You need to show how the interpretation is wrong. An interpretation that is consistent with all the facts is an interpretation that is accepted as tentatively true.

 

[ananda]

Those are facts. Period. We have the science showing how these neurotransmitters produce emotions.

Also, it isn't enough to call something an interpretation. You need to show how the interpretation is wrong. An interpretation that is consistent with all the facts is an interpretation that is accepted as tentatively true.

Your claim that they are "facts" do not make them facts. There are other explanations for love, which is why your reference stated that it was only the "conventional view in biology".

If GMOs are so beneficial, then why don't manufacturers proudly label their products "NOW WITH 10% MORE GMOs!"

 

[Loudmouth]

Your claim that they are "facts" do not make them facts.

The science behind them does.

If GMOs are so beneficial, then why don't manufacturers proudly label their products "NOW WITH 10% MORE GMOs!"

The GMO's are primarily beneficial to the farmer because they decrease operation costs and increase yield.

 

[ananda]

The science behind them does.

"Science" is often faked, so it's not reliable evidence to me.

The GMO's are primarily beneficial to the farmer because they decrease operation costs and increase yield.

Show me a bag of seed that says "NOW WITH 10% MORE GMOs!" then.

 

[Michael]

The GMO's are primarily beneficial to the farmer because they decrease operation costs and increase yield.

I'm still waiting for evidence to support your unsupported claim about increased yields. The costs depend on many factors, including the cost of the seeds and the cost of roundup, both of which are controlled by Monsanto and can therefore change at any time.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Science" is often faked, so it's not reliable evidence to me.

If you are going to deny facts, there is really no reason to continue a discussion. If your position requires you to believe that all of the science is faked, then your position has a serious problem.

Show me a bag of seed that says "NOW WITH 10% MORE GMOs!" then.

Do you think farmers just accidently buy the GMO Roundup-Ready strains?

 

[The Cadet]

I'm still waiting for evidence to support your unsupported claim about increased yields. The costs depend on many factors, including the cost of the seeds and the cost of roundup, both of which are controlled by Monsanto and can therefore change at any time.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Costs are down, profits are up, and yields are up.

 

[Michael]

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Costs are down, profits are up, and yields are up.

Thanks. That looks like a recent study as well. I'll have to chew on it for a bit before I comment further.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Without regard to the controversy surrounding GMO's should we be plowing up more land for annual crops at all? In view of global warming we should be returning acreage to permanent pasture, grassland, hay land, and forests wherever possible. Why encourage runaway population growth by means of overproducing foods when the annual cultivation of land contributes so heavily to global warming.

Maybe you and Ted Turner should have a nice talk sense he owns the biggest amount of land. Forests are now a renewable resource, everything is a crop. You can join Al Gore in the debate on how to best manage the land.

 

[Michael]

The profit gains of GM crops are 60 percentage points higher in developing countries than in developed countries (column 6). This large difference is due to higher GM yield gains and stronger pesticide cost savings in developing countries. Moreover, most GM crops are not patented in developing countries, so that GM seed prices are lower [19]. Like for yields, studies published in peer-reviewed journals report higher profit gains than studies published elsewhere, but again we do not find evidence of publication bias (column 7).

Emphasis mine. I thought that this commentary was rather telling. In short, the seed prices seem to make a huge difference in terms of profit and most of that increase in profit seems to be reported in countries where Monsanto has to be more price competitive.

Good study. I'm still reading through it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There are no human parts in rice.



Is there anything based on evidence?

Truth is stranger then fiction. The first GM food crop containing human genes will likely be approved for commercial production shortly. It is a strain of rice that produces some of the human proteins found in breast milk and saliva, which manufacturer Ventria Biosciences believes could be used to treat children with diarrhea.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thanks. That looks like a recent study as well. I'll have to chew on it for a bit before I comment further.

The study concludes that overall, meaning internationally, GMO's are more profitable. The suicides from the opposite effect in India are acceptable losses.

http://www.naturalnews.com/050455_farmer_suicides_GMO_cotton_Monsanto.html#

 

[The Cadet]

The study concludes that overall, meaning internationally, GMO's are more profitable. The suicides from the opposite effect in India are acceptable losses.

http://www.naturalnews.com/050455_farmer_suicides_GMO_cotton_Monsanto.html#

Natural News, lying again.

The Indian Farmer Suicide thing is a myth.

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/files/2014/01/GMOsuicidemyth.pdf

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/04/17/3648423/india-farmer-suicide/

In fact, farmers around the world are killing themselves; usually at an even higher rate relative to the general populace.

This new study touted by NaturalNews is interesting, but they vastly overstate the importance of the results, and ignore important caveats, such as:

Economists examined the national suicide data for 1997–2007 and concluded that there was no link of farmer suicides to Bt cotton adoption 19]. Indeed, plots of annual suicides in GJ and KA show no trend with time (Fig. 10a) or on the national total of suicides. Suicides in GJ were about 500 per year (<3 % of the national total), while cotton production was 24–39 % of the national total 37], and average yields were mostly >500-kg lint cotton ha −1 with CV <50 % (Fig. 7b). Farmer suicide rates in KA were high at about 2000 annually, but cotton production was only 2–4 % of the national total with predicted yields <500 kg and CV >50 % being very common (Fig. 7c). In KA, these are indicators of risk not only in cotton but also in other parts of the agriculture sector due to low and highly variable rainfall. In AP and MH, suicides are strongly increasing with time (Fig. 10b) and on the national total (Fig. 10c) with the increase beginning before the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002.

Their actual data is not that impressive either:

The Bt cotton graphs are essentially random scatterings; drawing a line through that is rather unreasonable.

Don't go to Natural News for your information. The website is run by a nutter and espouses essentially every medical quackery and insane conspiracy it can get its hands on.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Each genetic modification should be examined and judged for quality and safety on its own merits. It's been shown that the modification techniques themselves are safe, so it's the effects of the particular genes that are transferred or modified that should be the focus of attention - the same level of attention that is given to any new food product or additive. But opposing GMO as a whole because of ill-founded rumours about one product isn't reasonable; people don't boycott all factory products because of ill-founded rumours that a factory might once have produced something dangerous...

It's quite reasonable to query the environmental effects (e.g. is pest resistance less damaging than pesticide resistance?) and the ethics of the ways GMOs are monetised and commercialised - there are big companies involved, money, politics and power, and while it's fine to make a profit, it should not be a result of unfair exploitation of workers or detriment to farmers and the markets for their products.

But people do become irrationally obsessed with ideas that whole areas of life are serious health risks, even when the contrary evidence is visible, not just in scientific studies, but in whole populations that have been using them beneficially for years without significant adverse effects (e.g. vaccines, flouride, GMO). Here's a recent article that shows this effect on GMO papaya in Hawaii, golden rice, and others.