Is Canola Toxic? Food For Thought...

Thanks KDG for your clear explanation of genetic modification and toxicity of plants. I found it understandable and persuasive. I hope we can call on you again when issues of toxicity of knife shop materials come up.

Phil705
Winthrop WA USA
 
Yesterday I deleted this, but now I think it isn't as imfamatory.

Ever since Gregor Mendel started palying with his pea patch, scientists....and farmers....have been playing with the genes of plants and animals. This was not even new with Mendel, he just figured out what was hppening. Somehow when it is done in a laboratory it is evil, but when Grandpa borrowed his neighbor's bull, that was good animal husbandry.

There may be things wrong with GM, but there are the same things wrong with selective breeding ( ask any Hawaiian historian). An understanding of the genetic function can avoid some of this, and by-pass other problems.
Stacy
 
Hello Friends,

To liken selective breeding to genetic engineering seems similar to equating....

  • making love with cloning or
  • dieting with stomach stapling or
  • counseling with a lobotomy....
Sure there are issue with the one and with the other, but having similarities doesn't make them the same. Nor does drawing parallels with or invalidating previous generations' challenges with accepting the innovations and change of their day, invalidate the challenges of ours.

I must admit I have an inherent skepticism for such a potentially all pervasive technology as genetic engineering. For instance, apparently there are very few papayas left growing throughout the Hawaiian Islands that don't have the transgenic traces of UH's GMO to combat a ring virus that afflicts the fruit. As far as I know, that wasn't intentional. It just got out there and cross pollinated.

I also have a problem with information repression. Why can't I choose whether to eat the stuff or not? Why have the cartels, halls of learning and government agencies teamed up so one sided on this? Why are all the grants and funding geared for promotionary research? Where are the unbiased studies? Where's my freedom to choose what I put in my own body?

Why are the questions of concern marginalized and the people who raise them trivialized? Aren't the scientist supposed to be asking these questions too? Or do they just start with the premise of feta-complete and say...nope, its aaaallll okay, it ain't no different than what grandpa did with his bulls or nature did over millions of years. To say it doesn't matter what you ingest because the process of digestion will turn it into sh_t anyway doesn't quite "make the sale" for me. Sure we need to temper anxiety and avoid hysteria. Shouldn't we also temper conceit and overconfidence?

All the best, Phil

PS - Like Stacy, I've hemmed and hawed over sending this, but hey it's all among friends, right? :)
 
I love a good debate.....:D

I was mostly referring to the way people look at things.;)

However, the point that hybridizing or selective/cross breeding isn't related to genetic engineering is not valid. Both are the selective insertion or removal of a specific desired gene. To deny that would be similar to saying that Ben Franklin's experiments with electricity have no relationship to computers. Just because Ben could not envision the computer does not mean that his steps lead to that path. The same applies to Gregor mendel...and Gramps....The cross pollination of plants and mixing of genes between various breeds of cattle all led mankind along the path to GM.

Now, just because a path is there does not mean that everyone...or anyone....should go down it. Nuclear weaponry is one of those paths that may well have been left untrod. GM is a path that needs to be walked with open eyes, but not closed minds. It will require society and scientists to work together to get it figured out....the same goes for nuclear weapons.

Taking Phil's side for a moment:
I,too, am very worried about the control of government, finances, and society done by the huge mega corporations. They are sovereign to themselves, and often feel entitled to act in any way they wish regardless of laws or regulations. Not all are evil, but nearly all are secretive....which breeds no good faith. With such a bad track record, it is no wonder that society views their "It's Aaallll Goooooddd" statements with fear, doubt, and concern.

Stacy


Final comment;
I would by stock in Soylent Corp. I hear they have had a change of heart and are going Green. :eek:
 
Last edited:
I'm with Phil on this one.

For me, there's a big difference between the 'birds and the bees' and injecting gene carrying virus' into DNA and hoping for the best.

I want to be able to choose between the blue pill and the red pill instead of being told that I must take the blue pill while they tell me that it is actually green.

I've pretty much said all I wanted to say in my last post as no new points or arguments have arisen but I felt I wanted to bolster Phil's side on this so that's pretty much it for me on the topic unless something new that hasn't already been said comes up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top