So I watched the first half of Netflix's okja today before I raged and thumbs-downed that ****. I feel like, of all the things you can be on the wrong side of, science is the one thing to make sure that you are not on the wrong side of.

Imo, Netflix tried to make a Pocahontas-type movie expecting it to be good but with the fatal mistake of not doing their research.

E.g. bananas before genetic modification:


.

And after:


.

I cant help but think that the same people who are watching okja and orgasming on the idea of non-GMO products are the same people who are eating bananas while not realizing that they are the result of at least 5 thousand years of genetic modification.

Genetic modification through breeding is not the same as genetic modification through splicing.

When they put fish genes into strawberries or make cats glow in the dark or put scorpion poison in cabbages as an insecticide or make goats that have spider web in their milk, people have a right to be wary of it.

Oh and I agree that enviro-films are crap. Most enviro stuff is. Global warming fear, GMO fear, the big fraud of "clean" energy (solar, wind), many pollution regulations above the minimum - they all do more harm than good.

I wonder though - do you have an issue with any of the Frankenstein animals we're creating? With GMO "terminator" seeds? With herbicide resistant seeds? Do you see any problems with GMO?

Genetic Engineering or modification, which is what the OP is discussing, is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries. There are a number of different techniques that accomplished this task with specific targets in mind and with varying degrees of modification.

Wiki, not really the best reference, does present the basic facts:

Genetic_engineering

Cliff/short reference:

different-types-genetic-engineering

ToothSayer you've managed to quote all of the absurd anti-GMO propaganda terms out there "frankenfoods" without managing to show a smidge of evidence even hinting at harmful effects. Congrats on spreading the misinformation!

What in the list of what I said is untrue?

They couldn't show harmful effects from DDT either. In fact scientists assured people it was safe.

As for harm, Roundup Ready seeds look harmful to me, on a number of levels. As for other items, the safety studies run for 30 days. On mice. You could give mice DDT for 30 days in their water and you wouldn't notice bad effects.

It's very unscientific to claim we know the truth of something we don't know.

The Red Delicious Apple:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...icious/379892/

Example of DDT, and how long it took them to find out the harm (decades):

This is from a 2001 New Scientist article - decades after DDT was introduced. Scientists were unable to find negative health effects for decades. Exposed women were popping out grossly deformed cripples, many lives were ruined, thanks to the idiocy/incompetence/corruption of scientists, all the while scientists said it was safe.

You didn't make any claims, which was my point. Just posed questions using leading and scaring terms. "Frankenstein" animals?

Science doesn't claim to know the truth. It's a process to evaluate evidence and use it to tip the scales in one direction or the other. The body of science seems to point towards the direction of GMOs being generally safe, but no scientist says "science proves the truth that all GMOs are always safe all the time."

We can't just not do things until we know they're 100% safe in all ways at all times. Especially a valuable tool such as GMOs which is crucial and required in order to feed our ridiculous and growing population.

ToothSayer I don't know anything about nor care about DDT. Please stay on topic.

The reliability of science in determining threats to human health is relevant. In fact, it's the core of the topic. That you don't like to know how badly scientists have ****ed up in the past isn't my problem. These are facts. No wonder you're a cheerleader for this stuff if you're completely unaware of how scientists have ****ed up on these issues and continue to **** up.

GMO avoidance is derided as "scare", but you're not the boss of anyone - you don't get decide what level of caution they want to apply to profit-driven new technologies of unknown safety, that adulterate food.

And I did mention specifics. Roundup Ready seeds.

I'll just ignore all the ad hominems and assume you're trying to make one or more points here.

Of course the reliability of science in a general sense is relevant. But delving into the specifics of individual examples is hardly productive toward that end.

So is your point "science can't know" or "science says GMOs are unsafe"? You can't really have it both ways...

And saying "Roundup Ready seeds look harmful to me, on a number of levels" is not a claim about science or facts. It's an opinion of a random anonymous guy on the internet.

Its not safe until proven safe. There are tons of interactions that can take place inside the human body. I am not convinced at all that they thoroughly investigate all consequences. This is because this is not true clean science but money hunting projects using partially science to get there and to hedge their risks also.

I would say for the most part slight modifications that are well understood in the extend they alter the final product consumed are harmless or nearly harmless vs the alternative of no food or shortage or much higher prices etc.

I would imagine from all kinds of things i have seen that there are cases that they create all kinds of allergies to people and some side effects may not be entirely well understood that may end up making us vulnerable in some aspects where if something goes wrong it goes wrong in a very big scale.

Proper research will clear most of them or establish a better way to do things and still do it. But i am not sure all out there is 100% good. Because where you have money being the primary objective you tend to see people closing their eyes where they can...and public is rarely able to have any proper opinion without very extensive analysis offered.

The EPA was regulating DDT since the 50's. The idea that scientists were telling everyone it was perfectly safe until 2001 is a bit of a stretch.

The EPA (a federal agency) did not come into existence until 1970, signed into law by Richard Nixon. And it took a number of years for the new agency to implement its lawful mandates; which are continuously being modified and updated with new laws and regulations all the time.

This is not to say that some local and/or state agencies had some oversight to the use and application of DDT.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/

Oof, what a brainfart. you're right of course, I meant to say the USDA. State agencies were also delevloping anti-DDT policies.

Children were playing in DDT sprays well into the 60s.

I remember every summer evening at my Grandpa's cottage at York Beach they used to come around with a truck and spray all around the wetlands area behind the campground. Then everyone would line up and they would spray us all with a mist of something nasty. This was in the mid 70's. Wonder what that was.