Save our honey!

[sen-no-sen]

Basically what is the difference between a "bad GMO" and a "pretty" species obtained by crossing and selection, which in the same way will be patented, introduced in regions where it did not exist etc ...? what we have been doing (except the patent aspect which must be more recent) for decades already.

The difference is that in the case of hybridization (for example clementine which does not exist in its natural state) we had a kind of acceptance of nature.
In the case of a GMO, there was forcing (one could even say rape) by introducing genes which are totally foreign to each other.

After the sudden introduction of a species (even a natural one) into a biotope is not without risk (examples abound).

[sen-no-sen]

So we see that genetic manipulation is primarily a marketing and unfair commercial sham ... before even considering it beneficial for increasing productivity gains!

Absolutely, the goal of GMOs is to provide a package: seed, license, pesticide.

Now why should we admit authorizing modification of the genome in other living organisms and not in humans? Do plants not have the right to ethics? If this ethics is a bulwark against the madness of certain men, would plants be absolved from it?

Quite frankly, as the basis of the food chain, plants must enjoy particularly harsh protection.

For my part, if GMOs can possibly be the solution to famines, I know nothing about it and I would not be against in the event of harmlessness.

The scam of GMO food to reside precisely to pass its last as a solution to the famine rampant in the countries of the third world.
"Experts" ($$$) came explaining to us that with GMOs we could make plants resistant to "water stress" to parasites etc ... the same rhetoric as that used at the beginning of nuclear power: a wonderful world exponential growth thanks to the miracles of the technique.

And then why cross maize with a cactus when you can grow sorghum?

[chatelot16]

it's not just GMOs that can be dangerous: the introduction of unwanted plants and animals in certain regions of the world has already caused disasters

do not get bogged down in the debate with an ideological opposition to GMOs

bees must be protected, the usefulness of which is no longer to be demonstrated

you have to ban what's dangerous because it's dangerous ... not because it's GMO

When I talk about putting up signs around fields, I know that bees will not be able to read them ... but it is a legal means on the way to prohibition: forcing everyone to show danger and a first step to completely ban

[stipe]

Now why should we admit authorizing modification of the genome in other living organisms and not in humans? Do plants not have the right to ethics? If this ethics is a bulwark against the madness of certain men, would plants be absolved from it?

I completely agree with you, except that (or more) the crossing and selection of agricultural species is not tolerated in humans any more (eugenics, ugh) and there it is. 'does not stir up masses, yet for me the "evil" and the same and the change of means (GMO or selection) has little impact ...

[stipe]

The difference is that in the case of hybridization (for example clementine which does not exist in its natural state) we had a kind of acceptance of nature.
In the case of a GMO, there was forcing (one could even say rape) by introducing genes which are totally foreign to each other.

After the sudden introduction of a species (even a natural one) into a biotope is not without risk (examples abound).

I find that you contradict yourself ...
Your concept of "accepting nature" is a bit intriguing in many ways:
- Oil is for example a "fruit of nature" yet a black tide according to our criteria is an ecological disaster ... (your conclusion on the sudden introduction of a species goes in the same direction ...)
- For you, nature is a whole entity, almost thinking? God ?
- How is a GMO that grows produces seeds and reproduces not accepted by nature?

PS: 100% agree with the intervention of Chatelot

[Janic]

obamot hello

But I am like Ahmed, as long as it is the industry which will lead the ball, it will be wary of it like plague and cholera.

Is there currently a real dissociation between industry and research?

[Obamot]

Does it exist? Good question.

[sen-no-sen]

I find that you contradict yourself ...
Your concept of "accepting nature" is a bit intriguing in many ways:
- Oil is for example a "fruit of nature" yet a black tide according to our criteria is an ecological disaster ... (your conclusion on the sudden introduction of a species goes in the same direction ...)

Inappropriate comparison.
You do well to talk about a disaster "according to our criteria".
An asteroid falling on Earth and destroying half of life on Earth is banal and natural from a cosmic point of view, but catastrophic for us ....
The sun's rays are beneficial to us, however in high doses they can cause cancer.
The gastric juices in the stomach make it possible to digest food, if they were found in the brain, it would be death etc ...

In nature everything is a question of balance, and everything must be in its place without which there is destruction.


GMOs are precisely challenging the balance.
By forcibly implanting genes in a plant that should not be there, we create a disorder with consequences that are difficult to measure.

- For you, nature is a whole entity, almost thinking? God ?

When I spoke of "acceptance of nature", it was for ease of language, nature is not thinking, it simply "is", it is a state of things.

- How is a GMO that grows produces seeds and reproduces not accepted by nature?

Many deformities have been identified on GMO plans.
Experiments on rats have demonstrated this lack of acceptance with the appearance in his last of malformations, cancers or premature death.

[antoinet111]

it's amazing the things that you can get out sometimes:

GMOs are precisely challenging the balance.

Many deformities have been identified on GMO plans.


blah.

it's crazy, we just copy the replication of a virus in nature, you think it was the man who invented it? it's just a lab manipulation, gene integration as we had just observed.

stop with your bullshit, nature will accept it or not.
you grill yourself with your sales pitch.

that's the dark strength of the potato:

[sen-no-sen]

stop with your bullshit, nature will accept it or not.
you grill yourself with your sales pitch.

The angry truth looks like?
You are not outdone in terms of nonsense:

it's crazy, we just copy the replication of a virus in nature, you think it was the man who invented it? it's just a lab manipulation, gene integration as we had just observed.

I am going to write to Monsanto right now and propose you as a human guinea pig, since playing with genetic engineering is simple "like a lab manip".

I hope when affirming that you eat GMO morning, noon, evening because otherwise it is to take people for idiots!