Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Thanks Jono!

But note this key passage from the article you linked:

"At present, this scenario is speculative. Although it is clearly possible to detect transgenic DNA in the tissues of organisms that consume GM feed, no research has been published that shows that the GM DNA is expressed in the tissues of those organisms. It would be expected that if such expression did occur, it would not occur frequently. In order to find out whether such expression events actually occur, it would be necessary to conduct very large-scale studies – though identifying a suitable experimental design would be challenging."

Also, the only research I could find on this subject was published by a single research group in Germany 15 years ago, so it's not exactly catching fire. Likely the results were difficult or impossible to replicate.

Again, transgene transmission from GMOs to gut bacteria is potentially bad. But there is no proof (or real reason to believe) that it affects human DNA, so I think it would be best to focus our ire on the more believable horror stories instead of those that can be easily dismissed by GMO proponents.

Enjoy your frankenfood Jake. Just remember, populations rise with the available calories, not the other way around. And when one thing happens to the monoculture crop that the population swelled on, famine happens. One of the other issues with GMO seeds is that monoculture side of it. Genetic diversity is destroyed making those crops more susceptible to disease, which means more pesticides and herbicides. Or they are so much more resistant to disease that they out compete other plants. And when nature acts in it's nature, and a disease that was otherwise not expressing itself, and not prepared for, rears it's ugly head, the new GMO plants will suffer.

Then there is the whole business side of it. The companies that create those GMO seeds own every one of the seeds grown. It makes traditional farming techniques like seed saving illegal. Farmers that did not even plant GMO seeds on their farm have beed sued for saving their seeds, only to find that some GMO seed has blown in, and they inadvertently grew some. Then comes the knock on the door by the lawyers for one of those companies saying that you have infringed on their patent. Of course the farmer will lose the case, because he did save some GMO seed, even though it was unintentional. The mega corporation has vastly more legal resources than the farmer.

Jake - here's a good one for you: Even if the genetic modification itself didn't damage human DNA, the glyphosate that is poured on these GMO crops damages human DNA.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22331240/

http://www.naturalnews.com/news/035050_ ... o_DNA.html

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Glyphosate_Toxi ... _Cells.php

Glyphosate can be detected in 60-100% of air samples in the US. And if you (or your fish) are eating any Roundup-Ready GMO crops, then you have glyphosate in your diet too.

Ron, I suppose it is easier to label me pro-GMO instead of actually reading the words I've written? If you need a straw man that badly, go watch The Wizard of Oz .

I advocated more testing before release to the public and full labeling in any case. In part because neither the acute or long-term effects of GMOs in the food supply are known. I also said dousing plants with Roundup is dangerous, though damaging DNA in the lab isn't a straight line to in vivo genotoxicity and cancer.

Here's the problem. If you stretch the available science to the breaking point and beyond, you make it too easy for pro-GMO forces to point and laugh and the tin-hatted freak. There are any number of valid criticisms against GMOs in the food supply, plenty of which have been mentioned in this thread. So I highly suggest sticking to those points if you want a legitimate healthy food movement to succeed.

Ron, populations only rise with available calories when those calories go to increasing lifespan. ie: the people are no longer dying of starvation.

My apologies Jake, it sounded like you were defending GMO. The points I make are legitimate. A quick watch of Food Inc. and Botany of Desire will clear that up for you.

Mostly true. But I will give an example from history about what I mean. Historically, Europe's cultural center was the Mediterranean region. It has the correct climate to grow abundant amounts of wheat. That was the main caloric staple. Northern Europe's climate only allowed for a limited amount of wheat to be grown. When Spain's power allowed it to cross oceans, they brought back a new Peruvian tuber that grew well in cooler climates. Northern Europe now had a caloric staple it could grow, the potato. The population grew, and as such it's culture was able to flourish. Of course it was not without it's problems. Everyone in Ireland decided to grow one type of potato, despite there being hundreds of varieties grown in Peru, and then the Bain of monoculture, a pest, destroyed most of the potato crop, people starved or emigrated to the new world. The thing is that the potato allowed Northern Europe to become dominant in the world, whereas before it was considered a backwater part of Europe that Rome had once occupied.

No worries. Just to be clear, I don't dispute your points, Ron. It was the biological effects that were being misinterpreted.

The thing about scientific studies on weather or not GMOs are hazardous is that there is no money in it. Scientists still have bills to pay. I speculate that any research group that would start down the path of truly studying the effects of GMO would surely find a large grant to work on something else. That is just me speculating, but it does not seem far fetched. In the mean time, people like me who abhors GMO have to look for products labeled as not having GMOs. The rest of the population, who are rather unhealthy, go along unaware that the very food they eat is likely the cause of their medical bills.

Nah, that's not how grants work. The main issue is that it would be a very expensive and long-term epidemiological study to really prove anything. Best to go with your gut (literally).

This is another reason why it's difficult to publish anti-Industry research:
http://independentsciencenews.org/scien ... f-science/

That main article isn't working for me now, so here's a copy:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/16491-th ... of-science