Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.
...
Just my opinion.

A free/fair market can't exist without sellers and buyers having the
same information.
The problems with GMOs are multiple.
....
5) GMOs don't produce larger crops.

6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found 87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled.

I'm not sure opinions of the uninformed are all that important.

If you just label something as "GMO" all you are doing is waving a
warning flag without any information.

If a product has something in it that could be dangerous it shouldn't
be marketed. If it's got peanut genes in it, people should know
because some people are allergic to peanuts.

If we labeled all products that humans have fooled around with,
I'm pretty sure everything in the store would be labeled.

I don't know how you can assert that you can't use GMO to grow
a larger vegetable, fruit, or animal. I assume you can find all
kinds of traits that can be transferred cross species.
If you can transfer a gene from a pumpkin and grow grapes the
size of watermelons, I say go ahead. Of course a label wouldn't
be an issue in that case.

....
----

5) By larger crops, I meant higher yield (weight) per unit of surface
area.
Higher yield used to be touted as a reason for GMOs, but GMOs don't bear
more that non-GMOs.
....

Ah, misunderstanding. If you mean GMOs don't produce larger crops
now, I have no reason to disagree.

I think GMOs have very good potential as a means to improve yield
and a lot of other desirable characteristics of plants.

6) As ignorant of GMOs as a consumer may be, is that sufficient to deny
them the right to know what they are buying? At the store today they
have organic almonds, almonds, roasted almonds, tamari almonds, and
Honey Roasted Orange Almonds. Why should GMOs be more difficult to
identify? Isn't it my right to buy what I want to eat? Why don't I get a
choice?

Potatoes and tomatoes faced suspicion when they were first introduced to
Europe, but with time they earned acceptance.

On the other hand, modern science gave us diethylstilboestrol,
thalidomide, Vioxx, Bextra, Cylert, Baycol, and Palladone. Thalidomide
was particularly difficult to remove from the market, even when the
egregious consequences of its use were known. The FDA is loath to recall
unless the product is acutely poisonous, and strikes you down like a
bolt of lightening. If it is a chronic poisoning, it could take the FDA
years to recall the product.

To the best of my knowledge, there have been no feeding trials done with
GMOs. We are the guinea pigs.

I guess buying organic is the only way to avoid GMOs, at least until all
the "normal" fruits and vegetables have been contaminated by GMOs.

I'm not in favor of putting warning labels on things that don't
need warning labels. The only difference between GMOs and other
"improved" crops is a matter of degree.

As far as the real villain above Thalidomide, recalls by the FDA was
never an issue. In the case of Thalidomide, the FDA never approved the
drug. The FDA actually did an excellent job.

Some Americans were exposed in the clinical trials but the people
affected were mostly outside the US.

Interestingly, Thalidomide is considered a valuable drug, it's just
dangerous for pregnant women.

I guess buying organic is the only way to avoid GMOs, at least until all
the "normal" fruits and vegetables have been contaminated by GMOs.

If you eat any product containing cornmeal in the US the chances are over
90% you are eating GMO corn.

In article ,
"Steve Peek" wrote:


I guess buying organic is the only way to avoid GMOs, at least until all
the "normal" fruits and vegetables have been contaminated by GMOs.

If you eat any product containing cornmeal
or hominy
in the US the chances are over 90% you are eating GMO corn.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...nt-g-m-o-foods
-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.
...
Just my opinion.

A free/fair market can't exist without sellers and buyers having the
same information.
The problems with GMOs are multiple.
...
5) GMOs don't produce larger crops.

6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found
87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled.

I'm not sure opinions of the uninformed are all that important.

If you just label something as "GMO" all you are doing is waving a
warning flag without any information.

If a product has something in it that could be dangerous it shouldn't
be marketed. If it's got peanut genes in it, people should know
because some people are allergic to peanuts.

If we labeled all products that humans have fooled around with,
I'm pretty sure everything in the store would be labeled.

I don't know how you can assert that you can't use GMO to grow
a larger vegetable, fruit, or animal. I assume you can find all
kinds of traits that can be transferred cross species.
If you can transfer a gene from a pumpkin and grow grapes the
size of watermelons, I say go ahead. Of course a label wouldn't
be an issue in that case.

...
----

5) By larger crops, I meant higher yield (weight) per unit of surface
area.
Higher yield used to be touted as a reason for GMOs, but GMOs don't bear
more that non-GMOs.
...

Ah, misunderstanding. If you mean GMOs don't produce larger crops
now, I have no reason to disagree.

I think GMOs have very good potential as a means to improve yield
and a lot of other desirable characteristics of plants.
And you think that, because . . . ?
Jump in anytime.

6) As ignorant of GMOs as a consumer may be, is that sufficient to deny
them the right to know what they are buying? At the store today they
have organic almonds, almonds, roasted almonds, tamari almonds, and
Honey Roasted Orange Almonds. Why should GMOs be more difficult to
identify? Isn't it my right to buy what I want to eat? Why don't I get a
choice?

Potatoes and tomatoes faced suspicion when they were first introduced to
Europe, but with time they earned acceptance.

On the other hand, modern science gave us diethylstilboestrol,
thalidomide, Vioxx, Bextra, Cylert, Baycol, and Palladone. Thalidomide
was particularly difficult to remove from the market, even when the
egregious consequences of its use were known. The FDA is loath to recall
unless the product is acutely poisonous, and strikes you down like a
bolt of lightening. If it is a chronic poisoning, it could take the FDA
years to recall the product.

To the best of my knowledge, there have been no feeding trials done with
GMOs. We are the guinea pigs.

I guess buying organic is the only way to avoid GMOs, at least until all
the "normal" fruits and vegetables have been contaminated by GMOs.

I'm not in favor of putting warning labels on things that don't
need warning labels.
And you know what needs a warning label, how?

The only difference between GMOs and other
"improved" crops is a matter of degree.

If you read the first four points that I made, you would understand that
this is a radically different, and unproved way of breeding.

You recommend a leap of faith, or what?

As far as the real villain above Thalidomide, recalls by the FDA was
never an issue. In the case of Thalidomide, the FDA never approved the
drug. The FDA actually did an excellent job.

Some Americans were exposed in the clinical trials but the people
affected were mostly outside the US.

Interestingly, Thalidomide is considered a valuable drug, it's just
dangerous for pregnant women.

Until somebody does a feeding trial, we won't know anything. Or we wait
to see if any obscure disease has a sudden outbreak.
And the source of the misery that afflicted these ladies was learned men.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:
5) By larger crops, I meant higher yield (weight) per unit of surface
area.
Higher yield used to be touted as a reason for GMOs, but GMOs don't bear
more that non-GMOs.
...

Ah, misunderstanding. If you mean GMOs don't produce larger crops
now, I have no reason to disagree.

I think GMOs have very good potential as a means to improve yield
and a lot of other desirable characteristics of plants.
And you think that, because . . . ?

Well, because Jimmy Carter said so.

(Just kidding. Bet some of you at least giggled.)

That was my first Google hit.

Here is Wikipedia on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic...od#Crop_yields

Which cites some instances of increased yield.

But I made my statement based on my own knowledge of the subject
of selection. Some things grow bigger or faster than other things.
It's known that growth size and rate are genetically
controlled. It makes sense that those genes can be transferred from one
organism to another. If other traits can be transferred, why not
traits that affect yield.

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:
5) By larger crops, I meant higher yield (weight) per unit of surface
area.
Higher yield used to be touted as a reason for GMOs, but GMOs don't bear
more that non-GMOs.
...

Ah, misunderstanding. If you mean GMOs don't produce larger crops
now, I have no reason to disagree.

I think GMOs have very good potential as a means to improve yield
and a lot of other desirable characteristics of plants.
And you think that, because . . . ?

Well, because Jimmy Carter said so.

(Just kidding. Bet some of you at least giggled.)

That was my first Google hit.

Here is Wikipedia on the subject:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic...od#Crop_yields
"A 2010 article summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies on GM
crops worldwide."

This contention was supported by a "meta study" by an

unknown author, Janet E. Carpenter (PO Box 1008, Boylston,
Massachusetts, USA), whose work was

underwritten by CropLife International("CropLife International is the
global federation representing the plant science industry. We are a
network of regional and national associations in 91 countries. Our
member companies are committed to supporting sustainable agriculture
through innovation in crop protection, plant biotechnology and seed
production."), and

published by the Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan
Publishers Ltd. Like other Nature journals, there is no external
Editorial Board; editorial decisions are made by an in-house team,
although peer review by external expert referees forms a part of the
review process..

Do I need to point out that that the above is a house of cards?

I could find no other studies supporting Janet E. Carpenter meta
analysis.

I am very disappointed with Wikipedia :O(

However Professor Barney Gordon, of the University of
Kansas's department of agronomy is responsible for the report noting
GMOs lower yields.



Which cites some instances of increased yield.

But I made my statement based on my own knowledge of the subject
of selection. Some things grow bigger or faster than other things.
It's known that growth size and rate are genetically
controlled. It makes sense that those genes can be transferred from one
organism to another. If other traits can be transferred, why not
traits that affect yield.
Why indeed. Logic, you know, is only as good as it's premise. Either you
are an savant among gardeners and Monsanto has hired an ill informed
bunch of recombinant geneticists , or something is missing from your
knowledge of selection. Which do you think is more likely?

Why didn't the producers of GMOs do that; create GMOs with higher
yields? You would think that would have been a strong economic reason
for farmers to convert to GMOs instead of spending more on Round Up and
killing what little topsoil that is left.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:
Why indeed. Logic, you know, is only as good as it's premise. Either you
are an savant among gardeners and Monsanto has hired an ill informed
bunch of recombinant geneticists , or something is missing from your
knowledge of selection. Which do you think is more likely?

Savant I'm not. Savant isn't required.

How do I know that size and yield are genetic traits?
Because of the numerous times we've already selected for yield.

Why didn't the producers of GMOs do that; create GMOs with higher
yields? You would think that would have been a strong economic reason
for farmers to convert to GMOs instead of spending more on Round Up and
killing what little topsoil that is left.

The Wikipedia article cites apparent instances for GMO improving yield.

I'm guessing that you are unconditionally opposed to any use of GMO.
Is that why you won't concede that GMO _might_ induce a beneficial trait?

Seems like slippery ice to me.
Either it can induce change or it can't.
I think you're mostly opposed to GMO because you worry that it will
induce change. Too much change.

To also hold that it can't induce any beneficial change doesn't seem
rational.

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:
Why indeed. Logic, you know, is only as good as it's premise. Either you
are an savant among gardeners and Monsanto has hired an ill informed
bunch of recombinant geneticists , or something is missing from your
knowledge of selection. Which do you think is more likely?

Savant I'm not. Savant isn't required.

How do I know that size and yield are genetic traits?
Because of the numerous times we've already selected for yield.

Why didn't the producers of GMOs do that; create GMOs with higher
yields? You would think that would have been a strong economic reason
for farmers to convert to GMOs instead of spending more on Round Up and
killing what little topsoil that is left.

The Wikipedia article cites apparent instances for GMO improving yield.

I'm guessing that you are unconditionally opposed to any use of GMO.
Is that why you won't concede that GMO _might_ induce a beneficial trait?

I will concede it might induce a beneficial trait (but so far unproven).
I will also concede that it may be harmful for humans to eat (See Arpad
Pusztai, and StarLink corn).

Why doesn't it bother you that we are all the guinea pigs here?

Seems like slippery ice to me.
Either it can induce change or it can't.
I think you're mostly opposed to GMO because you worry that it will
induce change. Too much change.
Yes, too much change to the environment, and to those who consume GMO
products.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/664
A free/fair market can't exist without sellers and buyers having the
same information.

You responded to #5. How about #1. #2, #3, #4, and #6?

The problems with GMOs are multiple.
1) An antibiotic is attached to the genes that are to be inserted. This
allows for identification of GMO cells in a petrie dish. It also
allows bacteria to develop a resistance to that antibiotic, making
it worthless in the treatment of a bacterial disease.

2) The cauliflower mosaic virus is attached to the genes that are to be
inserted. The cauliflower mosaic virus is the activator that turns
on the inserted gene. More than 98% of the human genome does not
encode protein sequences. Some of these genes are for suppressed
evolutionary traits such as gills, some could be dormant diseases.
These genes are also susceptible to being activated by the
cauliflower mosaic virus.

3) The spliceosome (a complex of specialized RNA and protein subunits)
from the host cell may not recognize a protein from the injected
genes and attach it to other proteins, thereby creating an allergen.
This appears to be the case with GMO potatoes created by Arpad
Pusztai at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He
was tying to modify the lecithin in the potatoes, which he did, but
the potatoes gave lab rats lesions in their digestive systems,
which lead to death.

4) GMO Bt corn (StarLink) kills monarch butterflies. Round Up Ready
crops allow more glyphosate to be used to suppress weeds, but it
also severely damages the soil biota, triggers over 40 plant
diseases, and endangers human and animal health.

5) GMOs don't produce larger crops. (Ignore this for the sake of
argument)

6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found 87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled.

Further reading:
Against GMOs
"Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the
Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating"
by Jeffrey M. Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298231203&sr=1-1

and

For GMOs
"Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Food"
by Nina V. Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown
http://www.amazon.com/Mendel-Kitchen...y-Modified/dp/
030909738X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298231359&sr=1-1

(both are available at better libraries near you)


To also hold that it can't induce any beneficial change doesn't seem
rational.

Why don't you address the rest of the problems, hmmm?

- Billy
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

On Feb 20, 1:11Â*am, Billy wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN

If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about
anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.¹s ‹
genetically modified organisms ‹ you¹re out of luck. They¹re not listed.
You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can¹t
contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.¹s. Now, however, even that may not
work.
In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved
three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which
becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and Â*sugar
beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a
super-fast-growing salmon ‹ the first genetically modified animal to be
sold in the U.S., but probably not the last ‹ may not be far behind.

It¹s unlikely that these products¹ potential Â*benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that
the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or
foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because
they don¹t want to ³suggest or imply² that these foods are ³different.²
(Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but
that¹s another story.)
They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of
them. Nearly an entire continent ‹ it¹s called Europe ‹ is so wary that
G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports
(that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than
0.9 percent G.M.O.¹s must be labeled.
(cont.)
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense.Â* Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

Still not sure what a GMO is but thank you for the information

On Feb 20, 12:46*pm, wrote:
Billy writes:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.

GMO is artificial selection on steroids. *It's really directed
change vs. random change.

Opponents say that GMO is unnatural and that selection could
NEVER produce the results obtained with GMO.

Seems to me, that's short sighted. *Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation. *There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding. *It's just going to take a longer time.

Compare a wolf to a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. *Pretty radical change
there. *All done by humans in a relatively short amount of time.

That's not to say I'm 100% comfortable with crossing Poison Ivy and
Kudzu. *We don't want super weeds released into the environment.

Also I'm not comfortable with patents on living organisms but that
occurs now with artificial selection, it's not unique to GMO.

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such. *If the GMO results in
something in the food that wouldn't be there naturally, then the
food should be labeled. *For example, the extra component could
cause an allergy. *People should know if they are eating something
different. *But if GMO just makes the crop bigger or more drought
resistant, I can see no need for special labeling.

Just my opinion.

Thanks for the INfo

In article
,
Big Country wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:46*pm, wrote:
Billy writes:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.

GMO is artificial selection on steroids. *It's really directed
change vs. random change.

Opponents say that GMO is unnatural and that selection could
NEVER produce the results obtained with GMO.

Seems to me, that's short sighted. *Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation. *There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding. *It's just going to take a longer time.
You can breed salmon genes into a tomato with selective breeding?
Take longer indeed, salmon and tomatoes sprang from eukaryotic cells,
which evolved 1.6*2.1 billion years ago, and developed along completely
different lines (Plant Kingdom, Animal Kingdom).

Compare a wolf to a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. *Pretty radical change
there. *All done by humans in a relatively short amount of time.

That's not to say I'm 100% comfortable with crossing Poison Ivy and
Kudzu. *We don't want super weeds released into the environment.

Also I'm not comfortable with patents on living organisms but that
occurs now with artificial selection, it's not unique to GMO.

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such. *If the GMO results in
something in the food that wouldn't be there naturally, then the
food should be labeled. *For example, the extra component could
cause an allergy. *People should know if they are eating something
different. *But if GMO just makes the crop bigger or more drought
resistant, I can see no need for special labeling.

Just my opinion.

Thanks for the INfo

Just remember, there have been NO feeding trials. We are the guinea
pigs. No one knows if a particular GMO is good. We do know that Arpad
Pusztai's GM potatoes killed lab rats.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

Billy writes:

In article
,
Big Country wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:46*pm, wrote:
Billy writes:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
....
Seems to me, that's short sighted. *Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation. *There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding. *It's just going to take a longer time.
You can breed salmon genes into a tomato with selective breeding?

They transfer individual genes.
I don't see why not.

Maybe you could get a tomato to produce fish oil?

Take longer indeed, salmon and tomatoes sprang from eukaryotic cells,
which evolved 1.6*2.1 billion years ago, and developed along completely
different lines (Plant Kingdom, Animal Kingdom).

Yep, but that's why GMO is so cool, we won't have to wait for a billion
years to get our fish oil tomatoes.

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article
,
Big Country wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:46*pm, wrote:
Billy writes:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...t-g-m-o-foods-
la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
Seems to me, that's short sighted. *Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation. *There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding. *It's just going to take a longer time.
You can breed salmon genes into a tomato with selective breeding?

They transfer individual genes.
I don't see why not.

Maybe you could get a tomato to produce fish oil?

Take longer indeed, salmon and tomatoes sprang from eukaryotic cells,
which evolved 1.6*2.1 billion years ago, and developed along completely
different lines (Plant Kingdom, Animal Kingdom).

Yep, but that's why GMO is so cool, we won't have to wait for a billion
years to get our fish oil tomatoes.



Aside from everything else there is the issue of pattens. Sure you can
get your omega 3 rich tomato but it will cost you. Control of the food
supply will be a police duty.

Now back to Bladerunner or was it some Heston movie.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

³Every conflict in the world today has its origin in the
imagination of British map drawers,² Author Unknown

In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article
,
Big Country wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:46*pm, wrote:
Billy writes:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...ent-g-m-o-food
s-
la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
Seems to me, that's short sighted. *Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation. *There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding. *It's just going to take a longer time.
You can breed salmon genes into a tomato with selective breeding?

They transfer individual genes.
I don't see why not.

Maybe you could get a tomato to produce fish oil?

Take longer indeed, salmon and tomatoes sprang from eukaryotic cells,
which evolved 1.6*2.1 billion years ago, and developed along completely
different lines (Plant Kingdom, Animal Kingdom).

Yep, but that's why GMO is so cool, we won't have to wait for a billion
years to get our fish oil tomatoes.



Aside from everything else there is the issue of pattens. Sure you can
get your omega 3 rich tomato but it will cost you. Control of the food
supply will be a police duty.

Now back to Bladerunner or was it some Heston movie.

Soylent Green?
And book control the duty of the fire dept.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

"Big Country" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 1:11 am, Billy wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN

If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about
anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.¹s
genetically modified organisms you¹re out of luck. They¹re not listed.
You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can¹t
contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.¹s. Now, however, even that may not
work.
In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved
three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which
becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and sugar
beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a
super-fast-growing salmon the first genetically modified animal to be
sold in the U.S., but probably not the last may not be far behind.

It¹s unlikely that these products¹ potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that
the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or
foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because
they don¹t want to ³suggest or imply² that these foods are ³different.²
(Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but
that¹s another story.)
They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of
them. Nearly an entire continent it¹s called Europe is so wary that
G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports
(that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than
0.9 percent G.M.O.¹s must be labeled.
(cont.)
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius
of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at
all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on
a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

Still not sure what a GMO is but thank you for the information

GMO= genetically modified organism