Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
76 studies, not one, regarding corn
For example, an analysis of 76 studies published in February in Scientific Reports by researchers in Pisa, Italy, found that genetically engineered corn has a significantly higher yield than non-genetically modified varieties and contains lower amounts of toxins commonly produced by fungi.
Both effects most likely stem from the genetically engineered resistance to a major insect pest, the western corn rootworm, which damages ears of corn and allows fungi to flourish. The researchers said that the change has had little or no effect on other insects.
By engineering resistance to insect damage, farmers have been able to use fewer pesticides while increasing yields, which enhances safety for farmers and the environment while lowering the cost of food and increasing its availability. Yields of corn, cotton and soybeans are said to have risen by 20 percent to 30 percent through the use of genetic engineering.
5 seconds on google answered that in at least one sense - but I'm sure the thousands of other search results have much more info on the topic.You're the one making positive claims - such as "if it cant happen in nature it's not a good thing" without any supporting documentation.Sorry, but that is just not compelling. That is an authoritative, unsupported statement that is quite meaningless.If it can't happen in nature it's not a good thing.
Your opinion
Tell me how artificial gene editing ins "safer" than cross breeding compatible plants naturally.
And the post you are quoting consisted of more than that one line. If you can only comprehend one sentence fragment at a time let me know so I can limit my responses to 5 words or less
Is it a gut feeling? That's what you seem to be relying on...."it just doesnt seem natural!"
We have worse things to worry about - Sugar, suicide and heart disease and the toll it's taking on our life-spans.
As far as GMO - they steadily increased along WITH our life-span increase, so although there's no positive correlative effects necessarily, there's certainly not negative ones. Plus, Science.
Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them - Science in the News
After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.
Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.
OK so tell me why introducing animal genes into plants is a beneficial
Why are you complaining about it and asking random internet users about it...before you're even bothering to research the science for yourself...is the real analytical question you should be asking yourself.
To suggest you couldn't find the answer as to why they do what you've asked is indicative of your concern, know what I mean?
the progeny usually have to be crossed back to the parental variety to ensure stable adoption of the new trait. Sometimes undesired traits derived from one parent of a new, improved variety persist whereas the desired traits are lost.
Such are the difficulties and limitations of classical breeding. Molecular biological methods of gene transfer alleviate some of these problems by allowing the process to be manipulated at a more fundamental level. Instead of gambling on recombination of large numbers of genes, scientists can insert individual genes for specific traits directly into an established genome. They can also control the way in which these genes express themselves in the new variety of plant or animal. In short, by homing in on desired traits, molecular gene transfer can shorten the breeding time for new varieties and, in addition, lead to improvements not possible by traditional breeding.
It's a meta analysis of 76 studies, dude.76 studies, not one, regarding corn
For example, an analysis of 76 studies published in February in Scientific Reports by researchers in Pisa, Italy, found that genetically engineered corn has a significantly higher yield than non-genetically modified varieties and contains lower amounts of toxins commonly produced by fungi.
Both effects most likely stem from the genetically engineered resistance to a major insect pest, the western corn rootworm, which damages ears of corn and allows fungi to flourish. The researchers said that the change has had little or no effect on other insects.
By engineering resistance to insect damage, farmers have been able to use fewer pesticides while increasing yields, which enhances safety for farmers and the environment while lowering the cost of food and increasing its availability. Yields of corn, cotton and soybeans are said to have risen by 20 percent to 30 percent through the use of genetic engineering.
I don't believe that higher yields are necessarily a positive. And what specific gene editing was done to the corn? Was it a mere manipulation by adding genes that could have been introduced via natural hybridization methods or is DNA from completely foreign species being added?
We are seeing a drastic reduction in the biodiversity of food crops this does not make the crop healthier
That's what they're referring to as the alternative to classical breeding in the study - and like I said,5 seconds on google answered that in at least one sense - but I'm sure the thousands of other search results have much more info on the topic.You're the one making positive claims - such as "if it cant happen in nature it's not a good thing" without any supporting documentation.Sorry, but that is just not compelling. That is an authoritative, unsupported statement that is quite meaningless.
Your opinion
Tell me how artificial gene editing ins "safer" than cross breeding compatible plants naturally.
And the post you are quoting consisted of more than that one line. If you can only comprehend one sentence fragment at a time let me know so I can limit my responses to 5 words or less
Is it a gut feeling? That's what you seem to be relying on...."it just doesnt seem natural!"
We have worse things to worry about - Sugar, suicide and heart disease and the toll it's taking on our life-spans.
As far as GMO - they steadily increased along WITH our life-span increase, so although there's no positive correlative effects necessarily, there's certainly not negative ones. Plus, Science.
Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them - Science in the News
After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.
Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.
OK so tell me why introducing animal genes into plants is a beneficial
Why are you complaining about it and asking random internet users about it...before you're even bothering to research the science for yourself...is the real analytical question you should be asking yourself.
To suggest you couldn't find the answer as to why they do what you've asked is indicative of your concern, know what I mean?
the progeny usually have to be crossed back to the parental variety to ensure stable adoption of the new trait. Sometimes undesired traits derived from one parent of a new, improved variety persist whereas the desired traits are lost.
Such are the difficulties and limitations of classical breeding. Molecular biological methods of gene transfer alleviate some of these problems by allowing the process to be manipulated at a more fundamental level. Instead of gambling on recombination of large numbers of genes, scientists can insert individual genes for specific traits directly into an established genome. They can also control the way in which these genes express themselves in the new variety of plant or animal. In short, by homing in on desired traits, molecular gene transfer can shorten the breeding time for new varieties and, in addition, lead to improvements not possible by traditional breeding.
Where is the mention of animal genes being introdiced in plants?
That's what they're referring to as the alternative to classical breeding in the study - and like I said,5 seconds on google answered that in at least one sense - but I'm sure the thousands of other search results have much more info on the topic.You're the one making positive claims - such as "if it cant happen in nature it's not a good thing" without any supporting documentation.Your opinion
Tell me how artificial gene editing ins "safer" than cross breeding compatible plants naturally.
And the post you are quoting consisted of more than that one line. If you can only comprehend one sentence fragment at a time let me know so I can limit my responses to 5 words or less
Is it a gut feeling? That's what you seem to be relying on...."it just doesnt seem natural!"
We have worse things to worry about - Sugar, suicide and heart disease and the toll it's taking on our life-spans.
As far as GMO - they steadily increased along WITH our life-span increase, so although there's no positive correlative effects necessarily, there's certainly not negative ones. Plus, Science.
Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them - Science in the News
After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.
Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.
OK so tell me why introducing animal genes into plants is a beneficial
Why are you complaining about it and asking random internet users about it...before you're even bothering to research the science for yourself...is the real analytical question you should be asking yourself.
To suggest you couldn't find the answer as to why they do what you've asked is indicative of your concern, know what I mean?
the progeny usually have to be crossed back to the parental variety to ensure stable adoption of the new trait. Sometimes undesired traits derived from one parent of a new, improved variety persist whereas the desired traits are lost.
Such are the difficulties and limitations of classical breeding. Molecular biological methods of gene transfer alleviate some of these problems by allowing the process to be manipulated at a more fundamental level. Instead of gambling on recombination of large numbers of genes, scientists can insert individual genes for specific traits directly into an established genome. They can also control the way in which these genes express themselves in the new variety of plant or animal. In short, by homing in on desired traits, molecular gene transfer can shorten the breeding time for new varieties and, in addition, lead to improvements not possible by traditional breeding.
Where is the mention of animal genes being introdiced in plants?
there were thousands of search results - why are you even sitting here asking questions that answers exist on, on the same computer you're on? What are you trying to....prove you've never really looked into it, yet you've got your "opinion," somehow...from your gut?
That's how old ladies and hard headed geezers hang onto their ideas....by never actually looking into them. Don't do that.
No, wrong, incorrect -That's what they're referring to as the alternative to classical breeding in the study - and like I said,5 seconds on google answered that in at least one sense - but I'm sure the thousands of other search results have much more info on the topic.You're the one making positive claims - such as "if it cant happen in nature it's not a good thing" without any supporting documentation.
Is it a gut feeling? That's what you seem to be relying on...."it just doesnt seem natural!"
We have worse things to worry about - Sugar, suicide and heart disease and the toll it's taking on our life-spans.
As far as GMO - they steadily increased along WITH our life-span increase, so although there's no positive correlative effects necessarily, there's certainly not negative ones. Plus, Science.
Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them - Science in the News
After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.
Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.
OK so tell me why introducing animal genes into plants is a beneficial
Why are you complaining about it and asking random internet users about it...before you're even bothering to research the science for yourself...is the real analytical question you should be asking yourself.
To suggest you couldn't find the answer as to why they do what you've asked is indicative of your concern, know what I mean?
the progeny usually have to be crossed back to the parental variety to ensure stable adoption of the new trait. Sometimes undesired traits derived from one parent of a new, improved variety persist whereas the desired traits are lost.
Such are the difficulties and limitations of classical breeding. Molecular biological methods of gene transfer alleviate some of these problems by allowing the process to be manipulated at a more fundamental level. Instead of gambling on recombination of large numbers of genes, scientists can insert individual genes for specific traits directly into an established genome. They can also control the way in which these genes express themselves in the new variety of plant or animal. In short, by homing in on desired traits, molecular gene transfer can shorten the breeding time for new varieties and, in addition, lead to improvements not possible by traditional breeding.
Where is the mention of animal genes being introdiced in plants?
there were thousands of search results - why are you even sitting here asking questions that answers exist on, on the same computer you're on? What are you trying to....prove you've never really looked into it, yet you've got your "opinion," somehow...from your gut?
That's how old ladies and hard headed geezers hang onto their ideas....by never actually looking into them. Don't do that.
You have no idea what I have read and what I haven't
The history of people trying to manage the natural world has an abysmal record.
We have introduced nonnative species into environments only to see anything but good results. One alien plant species can decimate an ecosystem. One alien animal species can result in the decline or extinction of native wildlife.
There are always unintended consequences to these manipulations. Not all of them are desirable.
The natural variety in our food crops has been decreasing rapidly I fail to see how that is positive.
I’ve seen a lot of comments about GMOs where people are trashing them as being dangerous and inedible.
Yet, if one truly understands, almost every food we eat today has been genetically engineered in the centuries since they were first farmed. Wheat was once nothing more than a wild grass early farmers learned to harvest. How did they learn to dig up and eat root vegetables like carrots and onions. Potatoes. Corn. Tomatoes. All of it far different from the original.
Same with farm animals. The turkey we put on our plates today is totally different from with wild ones. Name a breed and it’s been altered from the original over history.
Date: June 4, 2019
Source: University of Rochester
Summary: While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, only about one third of consumers share that view. A team of psychologists and biologists set out to discover if consumers' attitudes would change if the public understood the underlying science better. The short answer is 'yes.'
Much more @ Would you eat genetically modified food if you understood the science behind it?
There is a very real difference between modifying a plant via hybridization by cross pollination and the inserting of completely foreign genes into the genome of a plant.
Explain the difference to us please.
So you don't understand that inserting a gene that in no way would ever make it into a plant's genome in the natural world is different from hybridization via natural methods?
Inserting animal genes into plants for example.
76 studies, not one, regarding corn
For example, an analysis of 76 studies published in February in Scientific Reports by researchers in Pisa, Italy, found that genetically engineered corn has a significantly higher yield than non-genetically modified varieties and contains lower amounts of toxins commonly produced by fungi.
Both effects most likely stem from the genetically engineered resistance to a major insect pest, the western corn rootworm, which damages ears of corn and allows fungi to flourish. The researchers said that the change has had little or no effect on other insects.
By engineering resistance to insect damage, farmers have been able to use fewer pesticides while increasing yields, which enhances safety for farmers and the environment while lowering the cost of food and increasing its availability. Yields of corn, cotton and soybeans are said to have risen by 20 percent to 30 percent through the use of genetic engineering.
I don't believe that higher yields are necessarily a positive. And what specific gene editing was done to the corn? Was it a mere manipulation by adding genes that could have been introduced via natural hybridization methods or is DNA from completely foreign species being added?
We are seeing a drastic reduction in the biodiversity of food crops this does not make the crop healthier
Because it is precise and predictable, with known, tested results.Tell me how artificial gene editing ins "safer" than cross breeding compatible plants naturally.
Um...methinks you've been genetically modified. Some tree posts spliced into ur brain perhaps? R a sack of shit?
I’ve seen a lot of comments about GMOs where people are trashing them as being dangerous and inedible.
Yet, if one truly understands, almost every food we eat today has been genetically engineered in the centuries since they were first farmed. Wheat was once nothing more than a wild grass early farmers learned to harvest. How did they learn to dig up and eat root vegetables like carrots and onions. Potatoes. Corn. Tomatoes. All of it far different from the original.
Same with farm animals. The turkey we put on our plates today is totally different from with wild ones. Name a breed and it’s been altered from the original over history.
Date: June 4, 2019
Source: University of Rochester
Summary: While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, only about one third of consumers share that view. A team of psychologists and biologists set out to discover if consumers' attitudes would change if the public understood the underlying science better. The short answer is 'yes.'
Much more @ Would you eat genetically modified food if you understood the science behind it?
I'll do whatever the fuck I wantNo, wrong, incorrect -That's what they're referring to as the alternative to classical breeding in the study - and like I said,5 seconds on google answered that in at least one sense - but I'm sure the thousands of other search results have much more info on the topic.OK so tell me why introducing animal genes into plants is a beneficial
Why are you complaining about it and asking random internet users about it...before you're even bothering to research the science for yourself...is the real analytical question you should be asking yourself.
To suggest you couldn't find the answer as to why they do what you've asked is indicative of your concern, know what I mean?
the progeny usually have to be crossed back to the parental variety to ensure stable adoption of the new trait. Sometimes undesired traits derived from one parent of a new, improved variety persist whereas the desired traits are lost.
Such are the difficulties and limitations of classical breeding. Molecular biological methods of gene transfer alleviate some of these problems by allowing the process to be manipulated at a more fundamental level. Instead of gambling on recombination of large numbers of genes, scientists can insert individual genes for specific traits directly into an established genome. They can also control the way in which these genes express themselves in the new variety of plant or animal. In short, by homing in on desired traits, molecular gene transfer can shorten the breeding time for new varieties and, in addition, lead to improvements not possible by traditional breeding.
Where is the mention of animal genes being introdiced in plants?
there were thousands of search results - why are you even sitting here asking questions that answers exist on, on the same computer you're on? What are you trying to....prove you've never really looked into it, yet you've got your "opinion," somehow...from your gut?
That's how old ladies and hard headed geezers hang onto their ideas....by never actually looking into them. Don't do that.
You have no idea what I have read and what I haven't
The history of people trying to manage the natural world has an abysmal record.
We have introduced nonnative species into environments only to see anything but good results. One alien plant species can decimate an ecosystem. One alien animal species can result in the decline or extinction of native wildlife.
There are always unintended consequences to these manipulations. Not all of them are desirable.
The natural variety in our food crops has been decreasing rapidly I fail to see how that is positive.
You gave clear indicative questions regarding what you have read and what you haven't..
literally, EVERY question you ask is researched and google-able - yet you still ask.
YOU gave the idea of what you've researched and haven't.
And you're still yammering about why you don't like it and producing no analysis of worth...not peer reviewed, not analyzed, no data...no study. Just your gut -
don't do that.
Because it is precise and predictable, with known, tested results.Tell me how artificial gene editing ins "safer" than cross breeding compatible plants naturally.
I see you are trying to punt,now. Apparently, your entire argument boils down to, "It kinda, sorta 'feels' wrong."
I’ve seen a lot of comments about GMOs where people are trashing them as being dangerous and inedible.
Yet, if one truly understands, almost every food we eat today has been genetically engineered in the centuries since they were first farmed. Wheat was once nothing more than a wild grass early farmers learned to harvest. How did they learn to dig up and eat root vegetables like carrots and onions. Potatoes. Corn. Tomatoes. All of it far different from the original.
Same with farm animals. The turkey we put on our plates today is totally different from with wild ones. Name a breed and it’s been altered from the original over history.
Date: June 4, 2019
Source: University of Rochester
Summary: While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, only about one third of consumers share that view. A team of psychologists and biologists set out to discover if consumers' attitudes would change if the public understood the underlying science better. The short answer is 'yes.'
Much more @ Would you eat genetically modified food if you understood the science behind it?
There is a very real difference between modifying a plant via hybridization by cross pollination and the inserting of completely foreign genes into the genome of a plant.
Explain the difference to us please.
So you don't understand that inserting a gene that in no way would ever make it into a plant's genome in the natural world is different from hybridization via natural methods?
Inserting animal genes into plants for example.
I think the real question is, "In what way does that make the food unsafe or unhealthy?"
One thing we know for sure is we CAN’T count on our massive very expensive omnipresent all powerful federal government to protect our food supply. We can count on them protecting the big corporations who produce our food.
I’ve seen a lot of comments about GMOs where people are trashing them as being dangerous and inedible.
Yet, if one truly understands, almost every food we eat today has been genetically engineered in the centuries since they were first farmed. Wheat was once nothing more than a wild grass early farmers learned to harvest. How did they learn to dig up and eat root vegetables like carrots and onions. Potatoes. Corn. Tomatoes. All of it far different from the original.
Same with farm animals. The turkey we put on our plates today is totally different from with wild ones. Name a breed and it’s been altered from the original over history.
Date: June 4, 2019
Source: University of Rochester
Summary: While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, only about one third of consumers share that view. A team of psychologists and biologists set out to discover if consumers' attitudes would change if the public understood the underlying science better. The short answer is 'yes.'
Much more @ Would you eat genetically modified food if you understood the science behind it?
I’ve seen a lot of comments about GMOs where people are trashing them as being dangerous and inedible.
Yet, if one truly understands, almost every food we eat today has been genetically engineered in the centuries since they were first farmed. Wheat was once nothing more than a wild grass early farmers learned to harvest. How did they learn to dig up and eat root vegetables like carrots and onions. Potatoes. Corn. Tomatoes. All of it far different from the original.
Same with farm animals. The turkey we put on our plates today is totally different from with wild ones. Name a breed and it’s been altered from the original over history.
Date: June 4, 2019
Source: University of Rochester
Summary: While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, only about one third of consumers share that view. A team of psychologists and biologists set out to discover if consumers' attitudes would change if the public understood the underlying science better. The short answer is 'yes.'
Much more @ Would you eat genetically modified food if you understood the science behind it?
I’ve seen a lot of comments about GMOs where people are trashing them as being dangerous and inedible.
Yet, if one truly understands, almost every food we eat today has been genetically engineered in the centuries since they were first farmed. Wheat was once nothing more than a wild grass early farmers learned to harvest. How did they learn to dig up and eat root vegetables like carrots and onions. Potatoes. Corn. Tomatoes. All of it far different from the original.
Same with farm animals. The turkey we put on our plates today is totally different from with wild ones. Name a breed and it’s been altered from the original over history.
Date: June 4, 2019
Source: University of Rochester
Summary: While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, only about one third of consumers share that view. A team of psychologists and biologists set out to discover if consumers' attitudes would change if the public understood the underlying science better. The short answer is 'yes.'
Much more @ Would you eat genetically modified food if you understood the science behind it?
There is a very real difference between modifying a plant via hybridization by cross pollination and the inserting of completely foreign genes into the genome of a plant.
Explain the difference to us please.
So you don't understand that inserting a gene that in no way would ever make it into a plant's genome in the natural world is different from hybridization via natural methods?
Inserting animal genes into plants for example.
I think the real question is, "In what way does that make the food unsafe or unhealthy?"
And in what way does it impact the biodiversity of the ecosystem.
What good is corn that produces some weird antibiotic if over several decades that engineered corn results in a destruction organisms that live in the soil and contribute to the growth of plants?
Or if that corn results in the decimation of a beneficial insect species?
We do not have a good track record when it comes to micromanaging the environment
