Jump to content

strawberries with fish genes in them!


Recommended Posts

Apparently, on the genetic engineering front, they are looking to put fish genes into strawberries so the berries wont freeze. Not sure if this has already happened or if it is in the 'research' stages but beware if you are eating GMO foods that they may have animal genes in them, like these literally fishy strawberries.

 

I try to stay away from Frankenstein foods as much as possible. scary stuff. dont you love how they were just 'sneaked' into the market without anybody bothering to ask or inform us consumers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The GMO ends up spread all over the place and that combined with inadequate testing could have be potentially very bad. Also related to that farmers not producing the GMO end up in trouble because the wind spread the seeds on to their land and they are accused of stealing it. They don't have the right to be growing it.

 

Monsanto is making GMOs that don't produce seeds so they can make greater profits and really fuck those third world farmers even harder. Then when the farmers commit suicide they can buy up the land.

 

A lot of the GMO stuff is actually designed solely to increase profits because well that's how capitalism works. This means increasing yields on a total mass basis and if the GMO has less nutrients, etc big fucking whoop. That's just too fucking bad. As long as profits are maximized the health problems that may creep up are not a concern.

 

With all this said, yes, of course GMO's could potentially be a very good thing. Being against them isn't knee jerk luddism. But the reality is that the technology is being used in harmful ways as is often the case with technology.

Edited by Jay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood why people got so up in arms about GMO's. Personally I think it's pretty cool stuff. Is it just because it's not 'natural'?

 

Rumor has it that Devo grew red pyramids on top of their heads because they ate too many GMO's

I bet Mothersbaugh isn't a fan of GMOs. He was all anti-corporate power way back then before the internet age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, and as many enviro groups say, gm foods are nutritionally deficient. That is what we DO know. As far as are they harmful to your health. Well, we dont know whether they are "safe". The burden of proving their safety for long term consumption should lie with those who are profiting from the GM foods. I also find it interesting that the goverenment has, last time I checked, succumb to industry pressure and refused to mandate GM labeling. Hmmm....that should raise some suspicion. Why dont the companies want them labeled and why did they bring GM foods into the market in such a back door, sneaky, quiet way?

 

Greenpeace which I know Will is a huge fan of has an anti-GM campaign. I am sure Sinister that you can find a whole bunch of info on the concerns for GM foods on their site.

 

And finally, we have irradiated foods. Somehow, zapping food with gamma rays just doesnt seem to be a wise idea. I read somewhere that eating an irradiated piece of fruit is like having 20 chest x-rays (cant remember where I read this but it wasnt an authoritative source). Maybe Jay can speak to irradition a little more?

 

Honestly, I can enough radiation from my cell phone and computer screen.

 

And lastly, there is the original point of this thread which was fishy strawberrries. This kind of genetic engineering would violate the dietary ethics of vegans. We could be eating veggies that arent even vegan for crying out loud. What next?

 

 

my two cents, but then again I am NO scientist like jay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood why people got so up in arms about GMO's. Personally I think it's pretty cool stuff. Is it just because it's not 'natural'?

 

Rumor has it that Devo grew red pyramids on top of their heads because they ate too many GMO's

I bet Mothersbaugh isn't a fan of GMOs. He was all anti-corporate power way back then before the internet age.

 

True man, he's an old school punk rocker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not against GMOs. I'm just against using technology irresponsibly, which seems to be what happens with GMOs more often than not now. In my idealized vision of the future food on Earth would all be produced hydroponically in giant greenhouse skyscrapers. This would eliminate the desertification and soil leaching of modern agriculture and would allow food to be grown locally, and without pesticides regardless of climate/region. GMOs could help make this happen. Of course nothing like that will happen soon, but it's fun to dream

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And finally, we have irradiated foods. Somehow, zapping food with gamma rays just doesnt seem to be a wise idea. I read somewhere that eating an irradiated piece of fruit is like having 20 chest x-rays (cant remember where I read this but it wasnt an authoritative source). Maybe Jay can speak to irradition a little more?

This isn't a part of GM foods though...? Anyway, no. That is definitely not true about it being like 20 chest x-rays. There is NO radiation left over in radiated foods. A radioactive source gives off particles, either alpha, beta, gamma, or x-rays. These particles when they hit something will "mess it up." But the actual particles don't leave any radiation behind. They just "mess the thing up." So they put food near a radiation source which gives off whatever kind of radiation. The food has no radiation as a result of being near the radiation source. It just gets damaged from the radiation. Maybe the damage that results isn't actually so good for a person to then be eating it? Maybe. But it appears that it's safe.

 

Honestly, I can enough radiation from my cell phone and computer screen.

Eh, I don't know what is emitted from a cell phone and screen. Is there any radiation? I don't know. Radiation also has a separate meaning in that heat can "radiate."

 

And lastly, there is the original point of this thread which was fishy strawberrries. This kind of genetic engineering would violate the dietary ethics of vegans. We could be eating veggies that arent even vegan for crying out loud. What next?

I guess the testing will mean killing some fish? I don't beyond the testing it will kill any fish. I guess it's a concern. Yeah it is maybe kinda fucked up.

 

my two cents, but then again I am NO scientist like jay.

Please, you're embarrassing me. You don't have to be a "scientist" to know about this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, on the genetic engineering front, they are looking to put fish genes into strawberries so the berries wont freeze. Not sure if this has already happened or if it is in the 'research' stages but beware if you are eating GMO foods that they may have animal genes in them, like these literally fishy strawberries.

Yuck ! Sometimes I think the best thing to do is grow my own fruits and veggies, but I'm not certain how well I would do in the city.... ...and I've killed a cactus before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, on the genetic engineering front, they are looking to put fish genes into strawberries so the berries wont freeze. Not sure if this has already happened or if it is in the 'research' stages but beware if you are eating GMO foods that they may have animal genes in them, like these literally fishy strawberries.

Yuck ! Sometimes I think the best thing to do is grow my own fruits and veggies, but I'm not certain how well I would do in the city.... ...and I've killed a cactus before.

 

ya, i would love to live in a place where i could grown my own food. that would be awesome.

 

i think jonathan is gonna do that once he moves to ireland in a few years. maybe i will secretly move in next door to him and raid his garden daily when he is away at work.

 

(hope he doesnt see this thread - otherwise, my plan is a bust ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood why people got so up in arms about GMO's. Personally I think it's pretty cool stuff. Is it just because it's not 'natural'?

 

FOr me, it's because they aren't necessarily being created for the benefit of the consumer.

 

One example: Round-Up ready soybeans (GMO soy created to be resistant to Round-Up chemicals so that they can be sprayed on the field without much care). Not only are they made to be R-U ready, but they are made to be sterile, so farmers who traditionally have saved seeds from one harvest to plant in the following year can't. This especially affects poor farmers and those in other countries. And in case some of the seeds are still fertile, farmers who buy R-U ready soy have to sign an agreement that they will not save the seeds.

 

Monsanto has even gone after farmers living NEXT TO fields who have R-U ready 'volunteer' plants growing .

 

Also, the R-U ready soy are created by combining genes from soy, a (petunia? some flower), a virus and a bacteria. Who knows what affect that can have on the body?

 

As Jay said, GMO foods don't just affect the fields they are grown in, but can royally mess up the environment. They can cross-pollenate with other plants (like the weeds that farmers don't want) and cause super weeds (just like taking antibiotics can produce antibiotic-resistance in bacteria in our bodies, this cross-pollinization causes chemical-resistant weeds. Just recently, I heard a news story that many weeds are now becoming resistant to Round-Up. Which makes the GMO soy that is resistant to it pretty useless!).

 

Good old fashioned hybridization (someone noticing good qualities in plant A and plant B, and cross pollinating them) is one thing, but when scientists start messig with mother nature (especially when it's mostly for corporate greed) they often go too far.

 

I believe in disclosure to customers, which isn't being done. While manufacturers have voluntarily labeled products "GMO-free," there is no law requiring GMO products to be labeled. And I think most Canola (?) products that aren't otherwise labeled, for example, ARE GMO.

 

FYI: You can check for GMO fresh fruits and veggies by looking at the number code on them. If it starts with "8", they are GMO. (If it starts with "9" they are organically grown).

 

Just another reason to choose organic, which can't be GMO, or irradiated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for irradiated foods, they don't pick up radiation, but they are molecularly changed somewhat. I'll bet a Kirilian photo of an irradiated apple would look like the apple is dead, while a Kirilian photo of a non-irradiated apple would look alive.

 

I recently ordered some products from an online raw food supplier, and the box came with a big orange sticker informing the P.O. that it contained organic foods and it was illegal to irradiate it. on

 

Does the P.O. regularly irradiate boxes that pass through it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for irradiated foods, they don't pick up radiation, but they are molecularly changed somewhat. I'll bet a Kirilian photo of an irradiated apple would look like the apple is dead, while a Kirilian photo of a non-irradiated apple would look alive.

 

I recently ordered some products from an online raw food supplier, and the box came with a big orange sticker informing the P.O. that it contained organic foods and it was illegal to irradiate it. on

 

Does the P.O. regularly irradiate boxes that pass through it?

 

I'm sure they tend to x-ray alot of packages that are mailed looking for suspicious materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should check out this documentary it really good http://www.wholesomegoodness.org/ . In it they talk about mixing the fish genes with tomatoes. I thought that they were saying it like a hypothetical thing but my boyfriend thought they were saying it had already been done. I tried looking on the internet to find out but everything I found said that it hadn’t really happened or it had been tried but didn’t protect the crops from freezing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

hats off to scientists. way harder than being a lawyer.

 

Not to me... I couldn't understand what was going on in law school half the time. Judges opinions seem entirely arbitrary and nonsensical to me, and trying to making sense out of nonsense for exams was driving me crazy. ... Physics, chemistry, calculus is easy though because it follows uniform rules that don't vary from courtroom to courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

hats off to scientists. way harder than being a lawyer.

 

Not to me... I couldn't understand what was going on in law school half the time. Judges opinions seem entirely arbitrary and nonsensical to me, and trying to making sense out of nonsense for exams was driving me crazy. ... Physics, chemistry, calculus is easy though because it follows uniform rules that don't vary from courtroom to courtroom.

 

Hmm...interesting Will. Well, I agree about the nonsense judges decisions part of what you said, but that is exactly why law is easier (to me anyway). There is no right or wrong (as is evidenced by appellate courts overturning trial decisions and the Supreme Court either overturning or confirming appellate court rulings). So, since there is no right or wrong, black or white answer, all you need to do is argue persuasively, know how to distinguish cases that hurt your client (or argue that the case was "wrongly decided and thus should not be followed), and/or state why a favourable case governs your clients situation. Failing that, throw in a policy argument and/or argue that the "rationale" behind the legal principle in question is applicable or inapplicable.

 

My point is there is no right or wrong so I find that to be easier.

 

With science on the other hand, the art of bulls**t doesnt work - there is a right or wrong answer, and I always got the answers wrong in science. I just didnt "get" science and I always hated it (probably because I didnt excel in it). My brain is so NOT science oriented.

 

I also hated geography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

hats off to scientists. way harder than being a lawyer.

 

Not to me... I couldn't understand what was going on in law school half the time. Judges opinions seem entirely arbitrary and nonsensical to me, and trying to making sense out of nonsense for exams was driving me crazy. ... Physics, chemistry, calculus is easy though because it follows uniform rules that don't vary from courtroom to courtroom.

 

Hmm...interesting Will. Well, I agree about the nonsense judges decisions part of what you said, but that is exactly why law is easier (to me anyway). There is no right or wrong (as is evidenced by appellate courts overturning trial decisions and the Supreme Court either overturning or confirming appellate court rulings). So, since there is no right or wrong, black or white answer, all you need to do is argue persuasively, know how to distinguish cases that hurt your client (or argue that the case was "wrongly decided and thus should not be followed), and/or state why a favourable case governs your clients situation. Failing that, throw in a policy argument and/or argue that the "rationale" behind the legal principle in question is applicable or inapplicable.

 

My point is there is no right or wrong so I find that to be easier.

 

 

You make it sound easy.... I think women are better equipped to be lawyers because hormonal differences during adolescence gives women a brain which can better handle verbal information, and because girls are enculturated to express themselves more verbally from an early age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With science on the other hand, the art of bulls**t doesnt work - there is .

 

Uhmm, sorry to disagree but yes it does.

 

Look at the registration of official think tanks, in Washington D.C. Science think tanks are becoming big business solely for the act of creating ambiguity and incorrect persuasion, in public policy.

 

For example, a think tank will find some minute science tangent that shows that something like petroleum gasses do not harm the environment, instead helping the environment. They will also show that there is no global increase in temperature and that there is no connection between CO2 buildup and heavy industry, when ice sample in the artic completely show that there is. ChevronTexaco will learn about this think tank's report and contribute million of dollars so the think tank can get publicity for the report. Legislators, who are heavily lobbied by CheveronTexaco will get the report feed actually into formulating bills.

 

This practice is growing and think tank registration is exploding, we people just finding weird scientific quarks that help Corporate America image, knowing they will get rewarded for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately scientists are expected to be great speakers along with knowing all the science. It's actually crucial to getting grants and all that crap.

 

Most of the scientists I've met in America can barely even speak English. So it can't be that crucial to succeeding here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With science on the other hand, the art of bulls**t doesnt work - there is .

 

Uhmm, sorry to disagree but yes it does.

 

Look at the registration of official think tanks, in Washington D.C. Science think tanks are becoming big business solely for the act of creating ambiguity and incorrect persuasion, in public policy.

 

For example, a think tank will find some minute science tangent that shows that something like petroleum gasses do not harm the environment, instead helping the environment. They will also show that there is no global increase in temperature and that there is no connection between CO2 buildup and heavy industry, when ice sample in the artic completely show that there is. ChevronTexaco will learn about this think tank's report and contribute million of dollars so the think tank can get publicity for the report. Legislators, who are heavily lobbied by CheveronTexaco will get the report feed actually into formulating bills.

 

This practice is growing and think tank registration is exploding, we people just finding weird scientific quarks that help Corporate America image, knowing they will get rewarded for doing so.

 

I think CG was talking about science vs. law exams. On a physics exam, if you don't know how to work the problem there is no way around it. On a law exam, if you don't know the material you can b.s. your way around it if you are good at that kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately scientists are expected to be great speakers along with knowing all the science. It's actually crucial to getting grants and all that crap.

 

Most of the scientists I've met in America can barely even speak English. So it can't be that crucial to succeeding here

Hey, what do I know? Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately scientists are expected to be great speakers along with knowing all the science. It's actually crucial to getting grants and all that crap.

 

Most of the scientists I've met in America can barely even speak English. So it can't be that crucial to succeeding here

Hey, what do I know? Good luck.

 

I know you're being sarcastic, but my last two jobs were working in universities (Florida State and Univ of Washington) and interacting with professors all day. A lot of the tenure trackers in the physical sciences at both places barely spoke English. Even a lot of the native English speakers, especially physicists, are some real oddballs that have abnormal social skills (that's putting it mildly). I don't mean any offense to anyone. I actually like eccentric introverts a lot and usually get along with them very well. But I've met lots of scientists that come across more like Asperger's types than public speakers, and they seem to be doing pretty well in their field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...