Who's Afraid Of Gmo?

[JMJones0424]

.

 

That is the twist to genetic manipulation .

What is the twist?  I would venture to guess that absolutely no food that you consume is free of previous human genetic manipulation.  If you wish to provide evidence that a specific GMO is inherently unsafe to consume, you are free to do so.  You haven't done so.  Instead, you continue to spread FUD.

 

Current, what is your evidence based argument against the human consumption of the Arctic Apple?

Edited April 18, 2017 by JMJones0424

[current]

 

current, on 18 Apr 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

.

 

That is the twist to genetic manipulation .

 

What is the twist?  I would venture to guess that absolutely no food that you consume is free of previous human genetic manipulation.  If you wish to provide evidence that a specific GMO is inherently unsafe to consume, you are free to do so.  You haven't done so.  Instead, you continue to spread FUD.

 

Current, what is your evidence based argument against the human consumption of the Arctic Apple?

When we first manipulated plants , there was no , chemical aspect to this manipulation .

 

Now , genetic manipulation , is about science , in a much , much , much more in depth knowledge . Genetic enginerring of plants , the manipulation of plant genetics has a much greater dynamic on our bodies . It's not Nature that is in control , it is industry that is .

 

We have , we are putting our trust , the food we eat in the hands of a chemical industry.

[JMJones0424]

You don't have a f'ing clue what you are talking about if you claim that prior to GMO there was no chemical manipulation of plant genetics.  I've already linked how new cultivars were developed prior to GMO.  Prior to GMO, there were two main options: either 1) maintain many isolated strains in order to hope to identify a random mutation that is desireable and can be reinforced through back-crossing, or 2)use chemicals to artificially mutate the plant and select for the randomly presented traits.

 

You have, and continue to be, putting your trust in the hands of the agricultural industry.  This is evident by the fact that practically nothing you eat today existed 1000 years ago.  It is utterly false to claim that GMO is the first chemical manipulation of plants.  There is no entity that can be identified as Nature.  Since the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago, humans have been actively selecting the expression of plant genetics.

 

You did not answer my question.  Why should you be afraid of consuming an apple that is GMO because it contains a gene sourced from grapes that are not GMO?

Edited April 18, 2017 by JMJones0424

[current]

You don't have a f'ing clue what you are talking about if you claim that prior to GMO there was no chemical manipulation of plant genetics.  I've already linked how new cultivars were developed prior to GMO.  Prior to GMO, there were two main options: either 1) maintain many isolated strains in order to hope to identify a random mutation that is desireable and can be reinforced through back-crossing, or 2)use chemicals to artificially mutate the plant and select for the randomly presented traits.

 

You have, and continue to be, putting your trust in the hands of the agricultural industry.  This is evident by the fact that practically nothing you eat today existed 1000 years ago.  It is utterly false to claim that GMO is the first chemical manipulation of plants.  There is no entity that can be identified as Nature.  Since the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago, humans have been actively selecting the expression of plant genetics.

 

You did not answer my question.  Why should you be afraid of consuming an apple that is GMO because it contains a gene sourced from grapes that are not GMO?

Sure for the last 10,000yrs we have been manipulating plants Naturally , no problem

 

Now we manipulate plants genetically through chemical industry . We have gone through the roundup situation , and the implications , as far as the ability to spray roundup more heavily . Because of a plants resistence to roundup .

[JMJones0424]

No.  The fundamental difference with how we have manipulated plants for the last 10,000 years and GMOs is that with GMOs we can specifically insert the genes required to provide the traits we desire instead of hoping for beneficial random mutations or using chemicals to initiate mutations.  If you wish to define "natural" then you need to do so.

 

What is your argument against the arctic apple line?  In this GMO, we've taken a gene that is already "naturally" consumed in non-GMO grapes and placed it in an apple.

[current]

No.  The fundamental difference with how we have manipulated plants for the last 10,000 years and GMOs is that with GMOs we can specifically insert the genes required to provide the traits we desire instead of hoping for beneficial random mutations or using chemicals to initiate mutations.  If you wish to define "natural" then you need to do so.

 

What is your argument against the arctic apple line?  In this GMO, we've taken a gene that is already "naturally" consumed in non-GMO grapes and placed it in an apple.

Natural is the Farmer combining one plant with another through his/her own experience of observation . No chemical industry needed .

 

Is the apple non-gmo ?

[JMJones0424]

No, the arctic apple is not non-gmo.  However, the gene that provides the useful mutation is already a natural (as you have defined it) mutation from non-gmo grapes.  If you were to purchase grapes containing this gene, they would be non-gmo.  However, when this gene is placed in an apple, the apple becomes gmo.

 

Why is this a problem?

Edited April 18, 2017 by JMJones0424

[current]

No, the arctic apple is not non-gmo.  However, the gene that provides the useful mutation is already a natural (as you have defined it) mutation from non-gmo grapes.  If you were to purchase grapes containing this gene, they would be non-gmo.  However, when this gene is placed in an apple, the apple becomes gmo.

 

Why is this a problem?

What about this apple is gmo ?

[JMJones0424]

A gene was artificially placed in to the apple's genome.  It is GMO for exactly the same reason that Round-Up ready crops are GMO and Bt corn is GMO.

[current]

A gene was artificially placed in to the apple's genome.  It is GMO for exactly the same reason that Round-Up ready crops are GMO and Bt corn is GMO.

Do you think this is a good situation with this apple then ?

[JMJones0424]

Yes I do.  I can think of no reasonable argument against this GMO.

[current]

Yes I do. I can think of no reasonable argument against this GMO.

But why compare to roundup ready crops and bt corn , to this apple ?

[JMJones0424]

Because the title of this thread is "Who's Afraid of GMO" and the arctic apple is a GMO.  It is, by your definition, unnatural.  It is also a perfect example of a targeted genetic change in a food source that produces a product that is more desirable.

Edited April 18, 2017 by JMJones0424

[current]

Because the title of this thread is "Who's Afraid of GMO" and the arctic apple is a GMO.

Fair enough !!.

 

There is alot more that needs to be understood about gmo's however .

[JMJones0424]

What do you suppose you need to know about GMOs?

[current]

What do you suppose you need to know about GMOs?

Everything .

 

Because not only is it our food , it is energy , nutrients , health , our well being and the evolution of our intellect , mind and body .

[quickquestion]

All living things that we know of are DNA based.  No one in their right mind would argue that because a substance contains DNA, it is safe to eat.  Also, no one has ever claimed that GMO's are inherently safe to consume.  What I claim is that your argument here against GMO is stupid.

 

What cultivar of orange are you referring to?  Do you figure that your response to that cultivar is due to its attributes or the fact that it is a GMO?  Do you realize that practically every food you consume is a product of human manipulation of genetics?

No idea what cultivar it was, I doubt it said on the label anyway.

 

If noone is arguing that GMO's are inherently safe to consume...why then, am I told I have an obligation to accept them into my produce isle? If noone has proven they are safe, then why am I obligated to accept them into my produce isle? As opposed to thousands of years of natural foods. Time tested, for safety. Thousands of years of natural plant-interbreeding, is not the same as GMO. You show me a sick and degenerate cancerous American society, as evidence of the safety of GMOs?

When thousands of years ago, men inter-breed plants to make superior plants, this was a different process than GMO. If GMO was the same process there would be no fuss, people would just say "Oh, same as those men thousands of years ago who inter-bred plants.."

Edited April 18, 2017 by quickquestion