GMO video by Potholer54

[tupac chopra]

http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Seralinial-AnswersCritics-FCT_2013.pdf

We would like to explain the choice of the strain of rat. This is
another redundant remark made by critics of our study design. We
recall that OECD norms (408, 452 and 453) are not prescriptive for
the strain of rat to be used. Sprague Dawley (SD) rats are subject to
spontaneous neoplasms and this property is supposed to invalidate
them being used as a model for carcinogenesis. However, on the
contrary, the fact that the SD strain develops tumors, hence has
led to it is preferentially used by some agencies such as for the National
Toxicology Program using it for 2-year carcinogenicity and
other long-term studies (King-Herbert et al., 2010). Indeed, it
would be a non-sense to study pathologies in a strain insensitive
to tumor formation. Long-term OECD guideline 452 even states
that rats and mice have been preferred as experimental model systems
because of their susceptibility to tumor induction. The same
reasoning is used for chronic progressive nephropathies (CPN)
developed by SD rats. The fact that the strain developed spontaneous
CPN with age (Hard and Khan, 2004) does not invalidate the
model as we looked at the difference in the chronology, age, number
and severity of CPN in comparison to controls.

 

[Underseer]

Oh my. [/georgetakei]

Just look at the domain name of your citation.

 

[tupac chopra]

Oh my. [/georgetakei]
Just look at the domain name of your citation.

Are you going to refute his claim though?
The choice of rats was appropriate. Monsanto launched a very effective PR campaign about the choice of rats.We can see how effective Monsanto's propaganda was, in that many sheep followed Monsanto and also objected to the strain of rats.

Why do people blindly follow Monsanto?

Are you objecting to Sprague Dawley rats...or do you agree Sprague Dawley rats were appropriate.
Seralini linked to scientific papers explaining why Sprague Dawley rats were appropriate.

Are you blindly following whatever Monsanto say? Or do you have some scientific reason why Sprague Dawley rats were not appropriate?

 

[bilby]

Oh my. [/georgetakei]
Just look at the domain name of your citation.

Are you going to refute his claim though?
The choice of rats was appropriate. Monsanto launched a very effective PR campaign about the choice of rats.We can see how effective Monsanto's propaganda was, in that many sheep followed Monsanto and also objected to the strain of rats.

Why do people blindly follow Monsanto?

I am not aware of anyone who does.

Of course, if you were to entertain the idea that nobody does, you might have to question why most of the well informed and intelligent people who discuss this topic disagree with you. In the absence of the rationalisation that they are either shills for, or dupes of, Monsanto, you could be forced to consider the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.

And that would never do, eh?

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go and collect my shill bucks.

 

[tupac chopra]

Are you going to refute his claim though?
The choice of rats was appropriate. Monsanto launched a very effective PR campaign about the choice of rats.We can see how effective Monsanto's propaganda was, in that many sheep followed Monsanto and also objected to the strain of rats.

Why do people blindly follow Monsanto?

I am not aware of anyone who does.

Of course, if you were to entertain the idea that nobody does, you might have to question why most of the well informed and intelligent people who discuss this topic disagree with you.

Are you ever going to post some science? Or just the usual crap?

I mean seriously how many more boring long winded posts are you going to put in this thread, full of your own worthless assertions and opinions without ever linking to any science?

 

[bilby]

I am not aware of anyone who does.

Of course, if you were to entertain the idea that nobody does, you might have to question why most of the well informed and intelligent people who discuss this topic disagree with you.

Are you ever going to post some science? Or just the usual crap?

I could ask you the same question. Albeit with rather more justification.

 

[fromderinside]

OK. So those who manage to get patents for their GMO get to the position of controlling the seed market? This, to me is the real problem with GMOS. Corporations controlling who plants what even to those in adjacent fields is more than a little troubling. As far as Genetic modifications go I see no more harm there than via selective breeding. Its just that these SOBS get to control the marketplace with their stuff. Everything the deniers have said here are not getting anywhere with agricultural patents. The problem with GMOs is market control by GMO producers.

I can see how that would be a problem; but it has fuck all to do with GMOs - there are no substantive differences between IP law or patent protection practices in the GM Seed business and in the non-GM seed business; or indeed in most other businesses.

That you believe there is speaks volumes about the effectiveness of anti-GMO propagandists.

I'm not anti GMO generally since the relation between breeding and genetic insertion. My problems are with big pharma control of seed lines by limiting reproduction of those lines to the extent of suing when seeds are blown or spread by animals to other sites or by effectively eliminating those lines bred and crossed.

There are differences in effectiveness. Its damn hard to breed for no seeds or no reproduction without direct artificial genetic intervention which is patentable. It not just about making seeds pesticide resistant its also about making new seeds necessary from vendors, particilar vendors, year after year.

- - - Updated - - -

OK. So those who manage to get patents for their GMO get to the position of controlling the seed market? This, to me is the real problem with GMOS. Corporations controlling who plants what even to those in adjacent fields is more than a little troubling. As far as Genetic modifications go I see no more harm there than via selective breeding. Its just that these SOBS get to control the marketplace with their stuff. Everything the deniers have said here are not getting anywhere with agricultural patents. The problem with GMOs is market control by GMO producers.

I can see how that would be a problem; but it has fuck all to do with GMOs - there are no substantive differences between IP law or patent protection practices in the GM Seed business and in the non-GM seed business; or indeed in most other businesses.

That you believe there is speaks volumes about the effectiveness of anti-GMO propagandists.

I'm not anti GMO.

There are differences in effectiveness. Its damn hard to breed for no seeds or no reproduction without direct artificial genetic intervention which is patentable. It not just about making seeds pesticide resistant its also about making new seeds necessary from vendors, particular vendors, year after year.

There are framers being sued because GMO seeds that do reproduce are found on their fields without them paying for them. There are instances where seeds have been modified so they cannot reproduce.

 

[bilby]

I can see how that would be a problem; but it has fuck all to do with GMOs - there are no substantive differences between IP law or patent protection practices in the GM Seed business and in the non-GM seed business; or indeed in most other businesses.

That you believe there is speaks volumes about the effectiveness of anti-GMO propagandists.

I'm not anti GMO generally since the relation between breeding and genetic insertion. My problems are with big pharma control of seed lines by limiting reproduction of those lines to the extent of suing when seeds are blown or spread by animals to other sites or by effectively eliminating those lines bred and crossed.

There are differences in effectiveness. Its damn hard to breed for no seeds or no reproduction without direct artificial genetic intervention which is patentable. It not just about making seeds pesticide resistant its also about making new seeds necessary from vendors, particilar vendors, year after year.

- - - Updated - - -

OK. So those who manage to get patents for their GMO get to the position of controlling the seed market? This, to me is the real problem with GMOS. Corporations controlling who plants what even to those in adjacent fields is more than a little troubling. As far as Genetic modifications go I see no more harm there than via selective breeding. Its just that these SOBS get to control the marketplace with their stuff. Everything the deniers have said here are not getting anywhere with agricultural patents. The problem with GMOs is market control by GMO producers.

I can see how that would be a problem; but it has fuck all to do with GMOs - there are no substantive differences between IP law or patent protection practices in the GM Seed business and in the non-GM seed business; or indeed in most other businesses.

That you believe there is speaks volumes about the effectiveness of anti-GMO propagandists.

I'm not anti GMO.

There are differences in effectiveness. Its damn hard to breed for no seeds or no reproduction without direct artificial genetic intervention which is patentable. It not just about making seeds pesticide resistant its also about making new seeds necessary from vendors, particular vendors, year after year.

There are framers being sued because GMO seeds that do reproduce are found on their fields without them paying for them. There are instances where seeds have been modified so they cannot reproduce.

Buying new seed every year has been the norm for a very long time, and easily pre-dates genetic modification.

Hybrid seeds cannot be viably produced from the mature crop; and in those cases where seed could, in principle, be harvested and re-planted, the specialist techniques needed to achieve the very high levels of viability that you get from commercial seed make doing so impractical for most farmers.

Your complaint is akin to worrying that Big Auto are using patents to prevent mechanics from making their own spare parts - it is true that that might be illegal under IP law, but it is irrelevant because almost nobody wants to do it anyway - almost all mechanics buy spares from licenced manufacturers; and almost all farmers buy seed annually from seed companies, whether they are GMOS or not.

Again, your position on this topic shows the effectiveness of anti-GMO propaganda; they may not have persuaded you that their position is correct, but they have persuaded you that some of their misinformation is well founded.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm not anti GMO generally since the relation between breeding and genetic insertion. My problems are with big pharma control of seed lines by limiting reproduction of those lines to the extent of suing when seeds are blown or spread by animals to other sites or by effectively eliminating those lines bred and crossed.

There are differences in effectiveness. Its damn hard to breed for no seeds or no reproduction without direct artificial genetic intervention which is patentable. It not just about making seeds pesticide resistant its also about making new seeds necessary from vendors, particilar vendors, year after year.

- - - Updated - - -

OK. So those who manage to get patents for their GMO get to the position of controlling the seed market? This, to me is the real problem with GMOS. Corporations controlling who plants what even to those in adjacent fields is more than a little troubling. As far as Genetic modifications go I see no more harm there than via selective breeding. Its just that these SOBS get to control the marketplace with their stuff. Everything the deniers have said here are not getting anywhere with agricultural patents. The problem with GMOs is market control by GMO producers.

I can see how that would be a problem; but it has fuck all to do with GMOs - there are no substantive differences between IP law or patent protection practices in the GM Seed business and in the non-GM seed business; or indeed in most other businesses.

That you believe there is speaks volumes about the effectiveness of anti-GMO propagandists.

I'm not anti GMO.

There are differences in effectiveness. Its damn hard to breed for no seeds or no reproduction without direct artificial genetic intervention which is patentable. It not just about making seeds pesticide resistant its also about making new seeds necessary from vendors, particular vendors, year after year.

There are framers being sued because GMO seeds that do reproduce are found on their fields without them paying for them. There are instances where seeds have been modified so they cannot reproduce.

Buying new seed every year has been the norm for a very long time, and easily pre-dates genetic modification.

Hybrid seeds cannot be viably produced from the mature crop; and in those cases where seed could, in principle, be harvested and re-planted, the specialist techniques needed to achieve the very high levels of viability that you get from commercial seed make doing so impractical for most farmers.

Your complaint is akin to worrying that Big Auto are using patents to prevent mechanics from making their own spare parts - it is true that that might be illegal under IP law, but it is irrelevant because almost nobody wants to do it anyway - almost all mechanics buy spares from licenced manufacturers; and almost all farmers buy seed annually from seed companies, whether they are GMOS or not.

Again, your position on this topic shows the effectiveness of anti-GMO propaganda; they may not have persuaded you that their position is correct, but they have persuaded you that some of their misinformation is well founded.

Actually I'm just worried about the farmers from adjacent farms to those who used their own seeds or seeds from other vendors were being sued by the company who produced genetically modified seeds just because there was some natural hybridization going on. Two problems. the unwanted GMO crops required the use of either particular fertilizers or particular pesticides and the hybrid crops were shown to be the same as far as consumable product with the patent holder's design crop.

No Different? No different? When was the last time you saw patented auto part components being blown from one field to another?