Discussion:
'Bio' vs 'Organic'
(too old to reply)
occam
2017-05-15 12:26:33 UTC
Permalink
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.

It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)

'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
Janet
2017-05-15 12:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
Labelling legislation in UK

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-food-labelling-rules

Janet
Harrison Hill
2017-05-15 14:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
...and nearly all of them have nothing whatsoever to do
with being "organic" - per your link.

<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bio+yogurt+tesco&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiskJmhkfLTAhWCK8AKHf1vAHEQ_AUIBygC&biw=1183&bih=530>
Post by Janet
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
You've missed "GM" off your list of things "omitted" :)
Post by Janet
Post by occam
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
Labelling legislation in UK
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-food-labelling-rules
Janet
Harrison Hill
2017-05-15 15:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Janet
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
...and nearly all of them have nothing whatsoever to do
with being "organic" - per your link.
<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bio+yogurt+tesco&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiskJmhkfLTAhWCK8AKHf1vAHEQ_AUIBygC&biw=1183&bih=530>
Post by Janet
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
You've missed "GM" off your list of things "omitted" :)
Post by Janet
Post by occam
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
Labelling legislation in UK
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-food-labelling-rules
Janet
So "bio" in BrE seems to mean: in a yoghurt:
1) "made with bio culture"
2) "made with bio-live cultures"

Proving that beer is good for you :)

In a margarine: cholesterol-lowering.
In a detergent: good for rivers.

So they are the things that are good for you at
the moment, but when we look back on them will prove
to have been the worst choices.

Bio-diesel:
Chop down the world's forests to grow palm oil.

Bio-mass power station:
Ship what is left of the world's forests across
the world - using fossil fuel at that - to save
the planet.
Mack A. Damia
2017-05-15 15:48:49 UTC
Permalink
"Brill film, if you note in the film sometimes it's 4x2 other
times 4x4".

A WWII film with a cool drink to finish it off. Anyone?
Harrison Hill
2017-05-15 17:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
"Brill film, if you note in the film sometimes it's 4x2 other
times 4x4".
A WWII film with a cool drink to finish it off. Anyone?
"Ice-Cold in Alex", as you say :)
Mack A. Damia
2017-05-15 17:22:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 May 2017 10:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Mack A. Damia
"Brill film, if you note in the film sometimes it's 4x2 other
times 4x4".
A WWII film with a cool drink to finish it off. Anyone?
"Ice-Cold in Alex", as you say :)
Thanks, nice to close the gestalt.
Lewis
2017-05-16 04:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Janet
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
...and nearly all of them have nothing whatsoever to do
with being "organic" - per your link.
<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bio+yogurt+tesco&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiskJmhkfLTAhWCK8AKHf1vAHEQ_AUIBygC&biw=1183&bih=530>
Post by Janet
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
You've missed "GM" off your list of things "omitted" :)
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
--
I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 07:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Janet
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
...and nearly all of them have nothing whatsoever to do
with being "organic" - per your link.
<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bio+yogurt+tesco&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiskJmhkfLTAhWCK8AKHf1vAHEQ_AUIBygC&biw=1183&bih=530>
Post by Janet
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
You've missed "GM" off your list of things "omitted" :)
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?

You know as well as I do what "GM" means.

"In 1998 we became the worlds first national food retailer to ban
genetically modified (GM) ingredients from our own products".

https://www.iceland.co.uk/our-food/our-food-story/
occam
2017-05-16 07:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Janet
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
...and nearly all of them have nothing whatsoever to do
with being "organic" - per your link.
<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bio+yogurt+tesco&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiskJmhkfLTAhWCK8AKHf1vAHEQ_AUIBygC&biw=1183&bih=530>
Post by Janet
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
You've missed "GM" off your list of things "omitted" :)
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
GM stands for 'Genetically Modified'. In this sense it suffers from the
same problem as 'organic'. All life forms are genetically modified in
some form or another in their long journey from creation to the present.
I think what is implicitly taken as read in 'GM' is that it is
Genetically-Engineered-By-Humans-in-Labs. Lewis' point stands, and I'd
even include "wild game" in the definition.
Sam Plusnet
2017-05-16 21:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Janet
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
...and nearly all of them have nothing whatsoever to do
with being "organic" - per your link.
<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bio+yogurt+tesco&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiskJmhkfLTAhWCK8AKHf1vAHEQ_AUIBygC&biw=1183&bih=530>
Post by Janet
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
You've missed "GM" off your list of things "omitted" :)
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
GM stands for 'Genetically Modified'. In this sense it suffers from the
same problem as 'organic'. All life forms are genetically modified in
some form or another in their long journey from creation to the present.
I think what is implicitly taken as read in 'GM' is that it is
Genetically-Engineered-By-Humans-in-Labs. Lewis' point stands, and I'd
even include "wild game" in the definition.
Ok, but it had better not have any 'chemicals' in it.
--
Sam Plusnet
Paul Wolff
2017-05-16 22:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Janet
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
...and nearly all of them have nothing whatsoever to do
with being "organic" - per your link.
<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bio+yogurt+tesco&safe=off&source=
lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiskJmhkfLTAhWCK8AKHf1vAHEQ_AUIBygC&biw
Post by Janet
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
You've missed "GM" off your list of things "omitted" :)
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
GM stands for 'Genetically Modified'. In this sense it suffers from the
same problem as 'organic'. All life forms are genetically modified in
some form or another in their long journey from creation to the present.
I think what is implicitly taken as read in 'GM' is that it is
Genetically-Engineered-By-Humans-in-Labs. Lewis' point stands, and I'd
even include "wild game" in the definition.
Ok, but it had better not have any 'chemicals' in it.
The important thing is to make sure our food is completely safe. After
all, if the life of just one innocent child is saved, it will be worth
it. To that end, we must make it illegal to sell any food, whether of
animal or vegetable origin, that contains mutated DNA that has not been
scientifically tested, in laboratories untainted by funding from selfish
private-sector profiteers or greedy bankers, for harmful consequences
following ingestion, digestion, or even suggestion.

Back to 'bio', there is an interesting class of therapeutic agent known
in the trade as 'biosimilars', which are put up for fast-track approval
(by 'the authorities') on the basis that they are pretty much the same
as already approved medicaments. (Language-wise, 'interesting' is the
ultimate subjective adjective, is it not?)
--
Paul
Peter Moylan
2017-05-16 17:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 17:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
In BrE "GM" means "engineered genetically, patented". Most UK
supermarkets (rightly or wrongly) distance themselves from it
It also has the suggestion of "chemical", "toxic".
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-16 18:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
In BrE "GM" means "engineered genetically, patented". Most UK
supermarkets (rightly or wrongly) distance themselves from it
It also has the suggestion of "chemical", "toxic".
It isn't only The Evil Big Corporations
that attempt to mislead public perception.

/dps
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 19:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
In BrE "GM" means "engineered genetically, patented". Most UK
supermarkets (rightly or wrongly) distance themselves from it
It also has the suggestion of "chemical", "toxic".
It isn't only The Evil Big Corporations
that attempt to mislead public perception.
I'm sure we can trust Monsanto.

Another acronymic "free-from" that was missing from the
earlier list is "MSG".
Lewis
2017-05-18 01:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
In BrE "GM" means "engineered genetically, patented". Most UK
supermarkets (rightly or wrongly) distance themselves from it
It also has the suggestion of "chemical", "toxic".
Yes, because uneducated dingbats launched a campaign of ignorance and
fear based on absolutely no evidence of any kind other than their
earth-muffin ignorant "feelings".
--
CURSIVE WRITING DOES NOT MEAN WHAT I THINK IT DOES Bart chalkboard Ep.
2F11
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-05-16 19:09:28 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 May 2017 03:24:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
GM involves direct, laboratory-style, modification of DNA.

I think that DNA can be introduced from a different species to achieve
results that would be impossible using controlled selective breeding.

Genetic Modification or Genetic Engineering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Definition

Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism using
techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA
prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into
a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This
involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to
form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the
incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector
system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and
micro-encapsulation techniques. More broadly the definition of
genetic engineering has be used to describe selective breeding and
other means of artificial selection.[5]

Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and
plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy,
mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant
nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4]
Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic
engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be
used within them.[7] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline
that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing
artificially synthesized material from raw materials into an
organism.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 19:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 17 May 2017 03:24:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
GM involves direct, laboratory-style, modification of DNA.
I think that DNA can be introduced from a different species to achieve
results that would be impossible using controlled selective breeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Definition
Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism using
techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA
prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into
a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This
involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to
form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the
incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector
system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and
micro-encapsulation techniques. More broadly the definition of
genetic engineering has be used to describe selective breeding and
other means of artificial selection.[5]
Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and
plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy,
mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant
nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4]
Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic
engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be
used within them.[7] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline
that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing
artificially synthesized material from raw materials into an
organism.
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-16 19:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
I think you're more likely to see barley DNA introduced into fish. Most gene introductions are done with a little closer choice of species, except the luciferin gene has now found wider use.

/dps
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 20:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
I think you're more likely to see barley DNA introduced into fish.
I feel reassured. Thank you. We're safe :)
Janet
2017-05-17 10:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
I think you're more likely to see barley DNA introduced into fish.
I feel reassured. Thank you. We're safe :)
You think? Just wait till sharks start growing in fields.

Janet.
Ross
2017-05-17 10:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
I think you're more likely to see barley DNA introduced into fish.
I feel reassured. Thank you. We're safe :)
You think? Just wait till sharks start growing in fields.
Janet.
Sharks on a Plain!!
Sam Plusnet
2017-05-16 21:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 17 May 2017 03:24:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
GM involves direct, laboratory-style, modification of DNA.
I think that DNA can be introduced from a different species to achieve
results that would be impossible using controlled selective breeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Definition
Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism using
techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA
prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into
a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This
involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to
form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the
incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector
system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and
micro-encapsulation techniques. More broadly the definition of
genetic engineering has be used to describe selective breeding and
other means of artificial selection.[5]
Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and
plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy,
mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant
nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4]
Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic
engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be
used within them.[7] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline
that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing
artificially synthesized material from raw materials into an
organism.
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
What are you carping about now?
--
Sam Plusnet
Tony Cooper
2017-05-17 01:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 17 May 2017 03:24:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
GM involves direct, laboratory-style, modification of DNA.
I think that DNA can be introduced from a different species to achieve
results that would be impossible using controlled selective breeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Definition
Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism using
techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA
prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into
a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This
involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to
form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the
incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector
system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and
micro-encapsulation techniques. More broadly the definition of
genetic engineering has be used to describe selective breeding and
other means of artificial selection.[5]
Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and
plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy,
mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant
nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4]
Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic
engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be
used within them.[7] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline
that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing
artificially synthesized material from raw materials into an
organism.
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
What are you carping about now?
I hope that's the finishing comment on this.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Sam Plusnet
2017-05-17 14:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Harrison Hill
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
What are you carping about now?
I hope that's the finishing comment on this.
May your creel overflow with fishpuns.
--
Sam Plusnet
Adam Funk
2017-05-18 08:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Harrison Hill
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
What are you carping about now?
I hope that's the finishing comment on this.
May your creel overflow with fishpuns.
Any idea why the electronic/experimental music label was called "Creel
Pone"?
--
A lot of people never use their intiative because no-one
told them to. --- Banksy
Lewis
2017-05-18 01:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 17 May 2017 03:24:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
GM involves direct, laboratory-style, modification of DNA.
I think that DNA can be introduced from a different species to achieve
results that would be impossible using controlled selective breeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Definition
Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism using
techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA
prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into
a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This
involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to
form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the
incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector
system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and
micro-encapsulation techniques. More broadly the definition of
genetic engineering has be used to describe selective breeding and
other means of artificial selection.[5]
Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and
plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy,
mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant
nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4]
Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic
engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be
used within them.[7] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline
that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing
artificially synthesized material from raw materials into an
organism.
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
About 90% of the cells in your body are microbes and bacteria,
leaving only 10% that can be classified as human. Of that 10%, quite a
lot of the DNA comes from fish, small fuzzy mammals, apes, and
Neanderthals.

In fact, nearly ALL of that 10% that makes you human is identical to a
Chimpanzee and probably on the order of 50% is the same as your random
vertebrate fish.
--
Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix.
I don't think that is a coincidence
CDB
2017-05-18 13:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild
game, all the food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat? How is
"wild game" different to farm bred meat in your distinction?
What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM
version, commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the
supermarkets because nobody likes the taste. It took many
generations of selective breeding to produce the variety that
we now use for making bread, among other uses.
GM involves direct, laboratory-style, modification of DNA.
I think that DNA can be introduced from a different species to
achieve results that would be impossible using controlled
selective breeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Definition
Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism
using techniques that remove heritable material or that
introduce DNA prepared outside the organism either directly into
the host or into a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the
host.[4] This involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or
RNA) techniques to form new combinations of heritable genetic
material followed by the incorporation of that material either
indirectly through a vector system or directly through
micro-injection, macro-injection and micro-encapsulation
techniques. More broadly the definition of genetic engineering
has be used to describe selective breeding and other means of
artificial selection.[5]
Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal
and plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of
polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not
use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism
in the process.[4] Cloning and stem cell research, although not
considered genetic engineering,[6] are closely related and
genetic engineering can be used within them.[7] Synthetic
biology is an emerging discipline that takes genetic engineering
a step further by introducing artificially synthesized material
from raw materials into an organism.
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to humans.
What can possibly go wrong? :)
The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom ... crash!
Post by Lewis
About 90% of the cells in your body are microbes and bacteria,
leaving only 10% that can be classified as human. Of that 10%, quite
a lot of the DNA comes from fish, small fuzzy mammals, apes, and
Neanderthals.
I heard recently that that claim resulted from a mistake, and that the
proportion is closer to 1:1. I have been waiting with interest to hear
further discussion of the question. Fifty percent is still a lot of
guest-workers, of course.
Post by Lewis
In fact, nearly ALL of that 10% that makes you human is identical to
a Chimpanzee and probably on the order of 50% is the same as your
random vertebrate fish.
I keep hearing news items. This one suggested that the genes we look at
are only part of the story. Another important part is how and when the
action of certain genes is triggered or suppressed by things like
environmental conditions and the nudgings of "junk DNA". Never simple, eh?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 14:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 17 May 2017 03:24:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
GM involves direct, laboratory-style, modification of DNA.
I think that DNA can be introduced from a different species to achieve
results that would be impossible using controlled selective breeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Definition
Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism using
techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA
prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into
a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This
involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to
form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the
incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector
system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and
micro-encapsulation techniques. More broadly the definition of
genetic engineering has be used to describe selective breeding and
other means of artificial selection.[5]
Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and
plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy,
mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant
nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4]
Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic
engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be
used within them.[7] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline
that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing
artificially synthesized material from raw materials into an
organism.
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
About 90% of the cells in your body
"Body" as understood in ordinary life, yes, but not as used in
physiology, where the body doesn't include the digestive tract. Apart
from the digestive tract you only have a few left over from past
bacterial infections -- or a lot if you're currently enjoying an
infection.
Post by Lewis
are microbes and bacteria,
leaving only 10% that can be classified as human. Of that 10%, quite a
lot of the DNA comes from
I don't like "comes from": I think you mean "is homologous with DNA in"
Post by Lewis
fish, small fuzzy mammals, apes, and
Neanderthals.
In fact, nearly ALL
About 98%: I guess that qualifies as "nearly all".
Post by Lewis
of that 10% that makes you human is identical to a
Chimpanzee and probably on the order of 50% is the same as your random
vertebrate fish.
--
athel
Quinn C
2017-05-18 17:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 17 May 2017 03:24:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
GM involves direct, laboratory-style, modification of DNA.
I think that DNA can be introduced from a different species to achieve
results that would be impossible using controlled selective breeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Definition
Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism using
techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA
prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into
a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This
involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to
form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the
incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector
system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and
micro-encapsulation techniques. More broadly the definition of
genetic engineering has be used to describe selective breeding and
other means of artificial selection.[5]
Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and
plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy,
mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant
nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4]
Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic
engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be
used within them.[7] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline
that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing
artificially synthesized material from raw materials into an
organism.
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
About 90% of the cells in your body
"Body" as understood in ordinary life, yes, but not as used in
physiology, where the body doesn't include the digestive tract. Apart
from the digestive tract you only have a few left over from past
bacterial infections -- or a lot if you're currently enjoying an
infection.
If we count things like mitochondria, they outnumber our cells by
a lot, of course (1000-2000 per cell).

They are usually thought as being an ancient "infection".
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
are microbes and bacteria,
leaving only 10% that can be classified as human. Of that 10%, quite a
lot of the DNA comes from
I don't like "comes from": I think you mean "is homologous with DNA in"
If this was engineering, one could say "was originally developed
for the purpose of", no?
--
The trouble some people have being German, I thought,
I have being human.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.130
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 17:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 17 May 2017 03:24:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
GM involves direct, laboratory-style, modification of DNA.
I think that DNA can be introduced from a different species to achieve
results that would be impossible using controlled selective breeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Definition
Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism using
techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA
prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into
a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This
involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to
form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the
incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector
system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and
micro-encapsulation techniques. More broadly the definition of
genetic engineering has be used to describe selective breeding and
other means of artificial selection.[5]
Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and
plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy,
mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant
nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4]
Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic
engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be
used within them.[7] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline
that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing
artificially synthesized material from raw materials into an
organism.
Exactly. Breeding fish DNA into barley and feeding it to
humans. What can possibly go wrong? :)
About 90% of the cells in your body
"Body" as understood in ordinary life, yes, but not as used in
physiology, where the body doesn't include the digestive tract. Apart
from the digestive tract you only have a few left over from past
bacterial infections -- or a lot if you're currently enjoying an
infection.
If we count things like mitochondria,
Why would you? They're not alive. While you're at it, why not count
protein molecules, which aren't alive either, but which outnumber
mitochondria by a huge factor?
Post by Quinn C
they outnumber our cells by
a lot, of course (1000-2000 per cell).
They are usually thought as being an ancient "infection".
That's a bit of an oversimplification.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
are microbes and bacteria,
leaving only 10% that can be classified as human. Of that 10%, quite a
lot of the DNA comes from
I don't like "comes from": I think you mean "is homologous with DNA in"
If this was engineering, one could say "was originally developed
for the purpose of", no?
--
athel
CDB
2017-05-16 22:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
People who would like to avoid GM usually use it to mean "genetically
engineered" (putting cucaracha genes into a tomato to make it
unsquashable, for a ficticious example), not selectively bred to
emphasise something that's already there. The claim has been made by
gluten-avoiders, though, that the trouble started when selective
breeding for dwarf wheat resulted in a harmful rearrangement of the
amino-acids in its gliadin.

I like things that people have been using for a few centuries, because
we're pretty sure we know what they can do to us.
Jack Campin
2017-05-16 23:27:50 UTC
Permalink
The claim has been made by gluten-avoiders, though, that the trouble
started when selective breeding for dwarf wheat resulted in a harmful
rearrangement of the amino-acids in its gliadin.
I'm sure you can find somebody who claimed it was caused by adverse
astrological configurations too, if you trawl the gutters looking for
irrelevant loonies. But awareness of coeliac disease, its aetiology,
and the methodology for treating it predates the wide use of dwarf
wheat...

https://www.csaceliacs.org/history_of_celiac_disease.jsp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

...by 5 or 1800 years, depending on what criterion of definiteness
about coeliac disease you want to insist on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Lewis
2017-05-18 01:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
People who would like to avoid GM usually use it to mean "genetically
engineered" (putting cucaracha genes into a tomato to make it
unsquashable, for a ficticious example), not selectively bred to
emphasise something that's already there.
It is not like they are putting frog DNA into soybeans. They are simply
taking a shortcut to selective breeding. Sure, they could send 200 years
breeding a strain of rice that carries some amount of Vitamin C,
improving the health of countless destitute people, or they could
engineer it in a lab and improve people's lives right now. (real
example).

I know which one *I* am in favor of.
Post by CDB
The claim has been made by gluten-avoiders, though, that the trouble
started when selective breeding for dwarf wheat resulted in a harmful
rearrangement of the amino-acids in its gliadin.
Uh huh. the whole 'gluten-free' craze is about as scientifically sound
as the invisible pink unicorn. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity is a myth.
Post by CDB
I like things that people have been using for a few centuries, because
we're pretty sure we know what they can do to us.
Another fantasy. There's *nothing* we plant that has been around a few
centuries. Hell, "heirloom" tomatoes are the sort of tomatoes that were
common 50-75 years ago. There are new strains of everything every few
years as people breed them and improve them and cross-pollinate them.
--
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Richard Tobin
2017-05-18 10:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Another fantasy. There's *nothing* we plant that has been around a few
centuries. Hell, "heirloom" tomatoes are the sort of tomatoes that were
common 50-75 years ago. There are new strains of everything every few
years as people breed them and improve them and cross-pollinate them.
Some apple varieties are over 200 years old.

-- Richard
CDB
2017-05-18 10:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
People who would like to avoid GM usually use it to mean "genetically
engineered" (putting cucaracha genes into a tomato to make it
unsquashable, for a ficticious example), not selectively bred to
emphasise something that's already there.
It is not like they are putting frog DNA into soybeans. They are simply
taking a shortcut to selective breeding. Sure, they could send 200 years
breeding a strain of rice that carries some amount of Vitamin C,
improving the health of countless destitute people, or they could
engineer it in a lab and improve people's lives right now. (real
example).
As I understand it, that is the kind of thing that has been done in some
cases. I prefer to eat food mostly from plants that have not been
recently modified for commercial purposes, but my principal objection to
GM is to the creation of things like "Roundup-ready" crops. The
immediate effect is that farmers become the captives of Monsanto (frex);
the result a little later on is that all the weeds in the area become
Roundup-ready. On to the next mutation!

We would be doing the destitute a bigger favour if we made more
contraception available. The farmers of India have been attacked by the
corporate conspiracy for saving seed from their own crops; suicides have
risen dramatically among them, as they are driven to despair by debt.
Canadian farmers have been successfully sued for theft by Monsanto
because wind-pollination has given some of their crops mutated genes
from nearby fields. There are plenty of reasons to oppose GM besides
the ick factor.
Post by Lewis
I know which one *I* am in favor of.
Post by CDB
The claim has been made by gluten-avoiders, though, that the trouble
started when selective breeding for dwarf wheat resulted in a harmful
rearrangement of the amino-acids in its gliadin.
Uh huh. the whole 'gluten-free' craze is about as scientifically sound
as the invisible pink unicorn. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity is a myth.
The way you put that makes it sound as if you have simply taken a
position announced by other people (science good, caution bad) without
looking into the question for yourself.

I have certainly not looked into the question in any detailed way
either, since I don't have the means or background knowledge to do so.
A year or two ago, though, I did try eliminating gluten from my diet for
a couple of weeks. I had heard an interview with the cardiologist who
started the trend by publishing a book recommending it, for the reason I
indicated above.

He claimed that there were benefits I found attractive (weight loss, a
clearer head, a reduction in cravings for sugar), and avoiding wheat for
a week or two is easy enough; so I tried it.

I found it difficult to tell if my thinking had become clearer, and two
weeks isn't long enough to claim weight-loss, but I found that I had had
a very noticeable drop in my need for sweets, a lifelong problem for me;
so I kept on with it. Since then, I have lost weight slowly but
steadily, at a rate of about a pound per month -- I can't guarantee that
some of that may not come from my thwarted preference for the taste of
wheat bread over that of spelt.

I do not recommend the change to anyone on the basis of my experience,
but I plan to stick with my moderate approach to the diet, because it
seems to have done me good. I do recommend looking into these things
for oneself, at least if there is no obvious danger involved.
Post by Lewis
Post by CDB
I like things that people have been using for a few centuries, because
we're pretty sure we know what they can do to us.
Another fantasy. There's *nothing* we plant that has been around a few
centuries. Hell, "heirloom" tomatoes are the sort of tomatoes that were
common 50-75 years ago. There are new strains of everything every few
years as people breed them and improve them and cross-pollinate them.
Mmm, heirloom tomatoes.
Peter Moylan
2017-05-18 15:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
We would be doing the destitute a bigger favour if we made more
contraception available. The farmers of India have been attacked by the
corporate conspiracy for saving seed from their own crops; suicides have
risen dramatically among them, as they are driven to despair by debt.
Canadian farmers have been successfully sued for theft by Monsanto
because wind-pollination has given some of their crops mutated genes
from nearby fields. There are plenty of reasons to oppose GM besides
the ick factor.
That's the biggest argument against GM crops, in my opinion. Those
farmers should have been able to sue Monsanto for pollution of their
crops. The fact that they couldn't do so says something about where the
power lies.

I don't have strong opinions about whether GM is good or bad. I do,
however, believe that the Monsanto executives should have been executed,
and the company dissolved. Evil corporations should be opposed at every
opportunity. And the judges who chose to support Big Business against
ordinary farmers should be among the first against the wall.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Lewis
2017-05-18 21:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
We would be doing the destitute a bigger favour if we made more
contraception available. The farmers of India have been attacked by the
corporate conspiracy for saving seed from their own crops; suicides have
risen dramatically among them, as they are driven to despair by debt.
Canadian farmers have been successfully sued for theft by Monsanto
because wind-pollination has given some of their crops mutated genes
from nearby fields. There are plenty of reasons to oppose GM besides
the ick factor.
That's the biggest argument against GM crops, in my opinion. Those
farmers should have been able to sue Monsanto for pollution of their
crops. The fact that they couldn't do so says something about where the
power lies.
Yes. As I said, the problems with GMOs are legal and regulatory.
Post by Peter Moylan
I don't have strong opinions about whether GM is good or bad. I do,
however, believe that the Monsanto executives should have been executed,
and the company dissolved. Evil corporations should be opposed at every
opportunity. And the judges who chose to support Big Business against
ordinary farmers should be among the first against the wall.
All corporations are evil since all corporations are amoral, and we
tend to equate those two things.
--
2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.
Paul Wolff
2017-05-18 22:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
We would be doing the destitute a bigger favour if we made more
contraception available. The farmers of India have been attacked by the
corporate conspiracy for saving seed from their own crops; suicides have
risen dramatically among them, as they are driven to despair by debt.
Canadian farmers have been successfully sued for theft by Monsanto
because wind-pollination has given some of their crops mutated genes
from nearby fields. There are plenty of reasons to oppose GM besides
the ick factor.
That's the biggest argument against GM crops, in my opinion. Those
farmers should have been able to sue Monsanto for pollution of their
crops. The fact that they couldn't do so says something about where the
power lies.
Yes. As I said, the problems with GMOs are legal and regulatory.
Post by Peter Moylan
I don't have strong opinions about whether GM is good or bad. I do,
however, believe that the Monsanto executives should have been executed,
and the company dissolved. Evil corporations should be opposed at every
opportunity. And the judges who chose to support Big Business against
ordinary farmers should be among the first against the wall.
We're all allowed a little bit of hyperbole now and again, but rational
discourse wins in the longer run.
Post by Lewis
All corporations are evil since all corporations are amoral, and we
tend to equate those two things.
Cards on the table: I've a Monsanto executive as a family member, and he
doesn't have horns and smell of sulphur. In fact, from what I know of
his job, he's employed to do good, by supporting smaller companies with
smart plans, that both may prosper.

There's a case to be made for stopping companies from getting too
dominant (how dominant is too dominant?). European competition law
doesn't stop dominant, but it's designed to prevent abuse of any
dominant position.
--
Paul
Robert Bannister
2017-05-18 23:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
We would be doing the destitute a bigger favour if we made more
contraception available. The farmers of India have been attacked by the
corporate conspiracy for saving seed from their own crops; suicides have
risen dramatically among them, as they are driven to despair by debt.
Canadian farmers have been successfully sued for theft by Monsanto
because wind-pollination has given some of their crops mutated genes
from nearby fields. There are plenty of reasons to oppose GM besides
the ick factor.
That's the biggest argument against GM crops, in my opinion. Those
farmers should have been able to sue Monsanto for pollution of their
crops. The fact that they couldn't do so says something about where the
power lies.
Yes. As I said, the problems with GMOs are legal and regulatory.
Post by Peter Moylan
I don't have strong opinions about whether GM is good or bad. I do,
however, believe that the Monsanto executives should have been executed,
and the company dissolved. Evil corporations should be opposed at every
opportunity. And the judges who chose to support Big Business against
ordinary farmers should be among the first against the wall.
We're all allowed a little bit of hyperbole now and again, but rational
discourse wins in the longer run.
Are you aware that you are writing this to the AUE newsgroup?
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Paul Wolff
2017-05-19 13:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
We would be doing the destitute a bigger favour if we made more
contraception available. The farmers of India have been attacked
by the
corporate conspiracy for saving seed from their own crops;
suicides have
risen dramatically among them, as they are driven to despair by debt.
Canadian farmers have been successfully sued for theft by Monsanto
because wind-pollination has given some of their crops mutated genes
from nearby fields. There are plenty of reasons to oppose GM besides
the ick factor.
That's the biggest argument against GM crops, in my opinion. Those
farmers should have been able to sue Monsanto for pollution of their
crops. The fact that they couldn't do so says something about where the
power lies.
Yes. As I said, the problems with GMOs are legal and regulatory.
Post by Peter Moylan
I don't have strong opinions about whether GM is good or bad. I do,
however, believe that the Monsanto executives should have been executed,
and the company dissolved. Evil corporations should be opposed at every
opportunity. And the judges who chose to support Big Business against
ordinary farmers should be among the first against the wall.
We're all allowed a little bit of hyperbole now and again, but
rational discourse wins in the longer run.
Are you aware that you are writing this to the AUE newsgroup?
AUE? Oh yes, I remember - the retirement home for professional
croquet-players and other failed idealists.
--
Paul
Cheryl
2017-05-19 00:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
We would be doing the destitute a bigger favour if we made more
contraception available. The farmers of India have been attacked by the
corporate conspiracy for saving seed from their own crops; suicides have
risen dramatically among them, as they are driven to despair by debt.
Canadian farmers have been successfully sued for theft by Monsanto
because wind-pollination has given some of their crops mutated genes
from nearby fields. There are plenty of reasons to oppose GM besides
the ick factor.
That's the biggest argument against GM crops, in my opinion. Those
farmers should have been able to sue Monsanto for pollution of their
crops. The fact that they couldn't do so says something about where the
power lies.
Yes. As I said, the problems with GMOs are legal and regulatory.
Post by Peter Moylan
I don't have strong opinions about whether GM is good or bad. I do,
however, believe that the Monsanto executives should have been executed,
and the company dissolved. Evil corporations should be opposed at every
opportunity. And the judges who chose to support Big Business against
ordinary farmers should be among the first against the wall.
All corporations are evil since all corporations are amoral, and we
tend to equate those two things.
I don't think I would equate evil and amorality. Evil seems to require
more motivation than amorality.

In any case, as long as the corporation obeys the laws, it hardly
matters whether it does so because of some moral imperative.
--
Cheryl
Lewis
2017-05-18 21:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Lewis
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
People who would like to avoid GM usually use it to mean "genetically
engineered" (putting cucaracha genes into a tomato to make it
unsquashable, for a ficticious example), not selectively bred to
emphasise something that's already there.
It is not like they are putting frog DNA into soybeans. They are simply
taking a shortcut to selective breeding. Sure, they could send 200 years
breeding a strain of rice that carries some amount of Vitamin C,
improving the health of countless destitute people, or they could
engineer it in a lab and improve people's lives right now. (real
example).
As I understand it, that is the kind of thing that has been done in some
cases. I prefer to eat food mostly from plants that have not been
recently modified for commercial purposes, but my principal objection to
GM is to the creation of things like "Roundup-ready" crops. The
immediate effect is that farmers become the captives of Monsanto (frex);
the result a little later on is that all the weeds in the area become
Roundup-ready. On to the next mutation!
We would be doing the destitute a bigger favour if we made more
contraception available. The farmers of India have been attacked by the
corporate conspiracy for saving seed from their own crops; suicides have
risen dramatically among them, as they are driven to despair by debt.
Canadian farmers have been successfully sued for theft by Monsanto
because wind-pollination has given some of their crops mutated genes
from nearby fields. There are plenty of reasons to oppose GM besides
the ick factor.
Post by Lewis
I know which one *I* am in favor of.
Post by CDB
The claim has been made by gluten-avoiders, though, that the trouble
started when selective breeding for dwarf wheat resulted in a harmful
rearrangement of the amino-acids in its gliadin.
Uh huh. the whole 'gluten-free' craze is about as scientifically sound
as the invisible pink unicorn. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity is a myth.
The way you put that makes it sound as if you have simply taken a
position announced by other people (science good, caution bad) without
looking into the question for yourself.
Does it? I have looked into it quite a bit since for a time we thought
one of our kids might be NCGS; enough to know that the scientist who
first proposed non-celiac gluten sensitivity has completely reversed
course and rejects it as "not a thing" to put it as briefly as possible.
Post by CDB
I have certainly not looked into the question in any detailed way
either, since I don't have the means or background knowledge to do so.
A year or two ago, though, I did try eliminating gluten from my diet for
a couple of weeks. I had heard an interview with the cardiologist who
started the trend by publishing a book recommending it, for the reason I
indicated above.
<http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085%2813%2900702-6/abstract>
<https://drruscio.com/non-celiac-gluten-sensitivity-a-recent-study-challenges-this-condition/>
--
Maybe I should have seen it as some kind of sign, except I don't believe
in them no more; no no, but I believe these things I can't forget, tho I
don't see you anymore.
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-18 14:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
People who would like to avoid GM usually use it to mean "genetically
engineered" (putting cucaracha genes into a tomato to make it
unsquashable, for a ficticious example), not selectively bred to
emphasise something that's already there.
It is not like they are putting frog DNA into soybeans.
No, it's bacterial DNA.

There was the famous case of putting fish DNA into tomatoes for frost
resistance, but according to Wikipedia, that didn't work well and the
strain was never marketed.
Post by Lewis
They are simply
taking a shortcut to selective breeding. Sure, they could send 200 years
breeding a strain of rice that carries some amount of Vitamin C,
improving the health of countless destitute people, or they could
engineer it in a lab and improve people's lives right now. (real
example).
I know which one *I* am in favor of.
...

Your opinion might change if there are unforeseen consequences.

People who don't believe in unforeseen consequences might remember
that chlorofluorocarbons are highly unreactive and appeared to be
perfectly harmless as aerosol propellants and refrigerants. For
decades there was not the slightest evidence that they could cause
any problem.
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 15:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
People who would like to avoid GM usually use it to mean "genetically
engineered" (putting cucaracha genes into a tomato to make it
unsquashable, for a ficticious example), not selectively bred to
emphasise something that's already there.
It is not like they are putting frog DNA into soybeans.
No, it's bacterial DNA.
There was the famous case of putting fish DNA into tomatoes for frost
resistance, but according to Wikipedia, that didn't work well and the
strain was never marketed.
Post by Lewis
They are simply
taking a shortcut to selective breeding. Sure, they could send 200 years
breeding a strain of rice that carries some amount of Vitamin C,
improving the health of countless destitute people, or they could
engineer it in a lab and improve people's lives right now. (real
example).
I know which one *I* am in favor of.
...
Your opinion might change if there are unforeseen consequences.
People who don't believe in unforeseen consequences might remember
that chlorofluorocarbons are highly unreactive and appeared to be
perfectly harmless as aerosol propellants and refrigerants. For
decades there was not the slightest evidence that they could cause
any problem.
A bit like asbestos. In pure form about as chemically unreactive as a
chemical can be (certainly less reactive than chlorofluorocarbons), but
the fibres can still cause cancer if they get to the wrong place.
--
athel
Paul Wolff
2017-05-18 15:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
People who would like to avoid GM usually use it to mean "genetically
engineered" (putting cucaracha genes into a tomato to make it
unsquashable, for a ficticious example), not selectively bred to
emphasise something that's already there.
It is not like they are putting frog DNA into soybeans.
No, it's bacterial DNA.
There was the famous case of putting fish DNA into tomatoes for frost
resistance, but according to Wikipedia, that didn't work well and the
strain was never marketed.
Post by Lewis
They are simply
taking a shortcut to selective breeding. Sure, they could send 200 years
breeding a strain of rice that carries some amount of Vitamin C,
improving the health of countless destitute people, or they could
engineer it in a lab and improve people's lives right now. (real
example).
I know which one *I* am in favor of.
...
Your opinion might change if there are unforeseen consequences.
People who don't believe in unforeseen consequences might remember
that chlorofluorocarbons are highly unreactive and appeared to be
perfectly harmless as aerosol propellants and refrigerants. For
decades there was not the slightest evidence that they could cause
any problem.
Ideal for powering Cheez Whiz, then.
--
Paul
Robert Bannister
2017-05-17 00:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
The point is that selective breeding takes a long time, which allows
errors to be perceived and eradicated. This is not the same as altering
the characteristics almost overnight in a laboratory, and lab tests are
not the same as observation over a period of fifty or a hundred years.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Lewis
2017-05-18 01:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
The point is that selective breeding takes a long time, which allows
errors to be perceived and eradicated.
No, selective breeding takes a single generation. Repeated generations
are needed if you want to make multiple selections. My parents bred a
strain of bell peppers that tasted like jalapeños (or possibly jalapeños
that tasted like bell peppers) because they planet both plants in
separate planters, but only about 10 meters apart.
Post by Robert Bannister
This is not the same as altering the characteristics almost overnight
in a laboratory,
Of course it is. There is no magic that happens because you did it "as
god intended" and issues are *more* noticeable in a lab because
everything is being looked at extremely closely.
Post by Robert Bannister
and lab tests are not the same as observation over a period of fifty
or a hundred years.
But that is not how selective breeding works at all in anything other
than very long lived animals like, say, elephants or humans.
--
Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what
do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?
Robert Bannister
2017-05-19 00:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
The point is that selective breeding takes a long time, which allows
errors to be perceived and eradicated.
No, selective breeding takes a single generation. Repeated generations
are needed if you want to make multiple selections. My parents bred a
strain of bell peppers that tasted like jalapeños (or possibly jalapeños
that tasted like bell peppers) because they planet both plants in
separate planters, but only about 10 meters apart.
I am only amazed that in America you are able to differentiate between
different types of peppers. All chillies/capsicums are basically the
same animal and they hybridise at the drop of a hat. I have seen long
and round ones on the same plant.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Lewis
2017-05-19 00:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lewis
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
The point is that selective breeding takes a long time, which allows
errors to be perceived and eradicated.
No, selective breeding takes a single generation. Repeated generations
are needed if you want to make multiple selections. My parents bred a
strain of bell peppers that tasted like jalapeños (or possibly jalapeños
that tasted like bell peppers) because they planet both plants in
separate planters, but only about 10 meters apart.
I am only amazed that in America you are able to differentiate between
different types of peppers. All chillies/capsicums are basically the
same animal and they hybridise at the drop of a hat. I have seen long
and round ones on the same plant.
Bell Peppers normally are not hot at all and normally contain no
capsaicin.

Different peppers taste different and have different heat levels. A
poblano tastes nothing like a jalapeño which taste nothing like an
Anaheim.
--
'Witches just aren't like that,' said Magrat. 'We live in harmony with
the great cycles of Nature, and do no harm to anyone, and it's wicked of
them to say we don't. We ought to fill their bones with hot lead.'
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-05-19 10:24:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:01:32 +0800, Robert Bannister
Post by Robert Bannister
I am only amazed that in America you are able to differentiate between
different types of peppers. All chillies/capsicums are basically the
same animal
Chillies/capsicums are animals? Is this the result of genetic
engineering?

;-)
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Adam Funk
2017-05-17 12:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
Selective breeding can only produce things that could exist in nature
(although more briefly & in sparser quantities under natural than
artificial selection), right? GM as the term is normally used can
produce things that could not exist otherwise.

I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
--
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What he Reads.
_Principia Discordia_
Quinn C
2017-05-17 21:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Selective breeding can only produce things that could exist in nature
(although more briefly & in sparser quantities under natural than
artificial selection), right? GM as the term is normally used can
produce things that could not exist otherwise.
I don't think so. AFAIK, a method used to get around strict
anti-GM laws is to produce many GM sorts in the lab (because it's
much faster this way), test them, and when you've chosen the most
promising variety, re-create it using selective breeding (and DNA
analysis).

Besides, I heard several researchers argue that the new
cut-and-paste methods like CRISPR-CAS are fundamentally different
from "traditional" GM and should be exempt from the existing
legislation.
--
Manche Dinge sind vorgeschrieben, weil man sie braucht, andere
braucht man nur, weil sie vorgeschrieben sind.
-- Helmut Richter in de.etc.sprache.deutsch
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-17 22:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Adam Funk
Selective breeding can only produce things that could exist in nature
(although more briefly & in sparser quantities under natural than
artificial selection), right? GM as the term is normally used can
produce things that could not exist otherwise.
I don't think so. AFAIK, a method used to get around strict
anti-GM laws is to produce many GM sorts in the lab (because it's
much faster this way), test them, and when you've chosen the most
promising variety, re-create it using selective breeding (and DNA
analysis).
How could you use that to get a bacterial gene for an herbicide-
resistant enzyme into a crop plant.
Post by Quinn C
Besides, I heard several researchers argue that the new
cut-and-paste methods like CRISPR-CAS are fundamentally different
from "traditional" GM and should be exempt from the existing
legislation.
After looking up CRISPR at Wikipedia, I can't imagine what the
relevant difference is supposed to be. What people, including me,
worry about is the pace of change and the environmental consequences
of increased biocide use, not the mechanism for genetic modification.
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2017-05-18 13:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Adam Funk
Selective breeding can only produce things that could exist in nature
(although more briefly & in sparser quantities under natural than
artificial selection), right? GM as the term is normally used can
produce things that could not exist otherwise.
I don't think so. AFAIK, a method used to get around strict
anti-GM laws is to produce many GM sorts in the lab (because it's
much faster this way), test them, and when you've chosen the most
promising variety, re-create it using selective breeding (and DNA
analysis).
How could you use that to get a bacterial gene for an herbicide-
resistant enzyme into a crop plant.
That you couldn't. Maybe I should rephrase: selective breeding,
these days, like in crossing various grains to get robustness and
high performance at the same time, is made much ore efficient by
actually using GM. And it could be made even cheaper if GM sorts
were allowed on the market.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Besides, I heard several researchers argue that the new
cut-and-paste methods like CRISPR-CAS are fundamentally different
from "traditional" GM and should be exempt from the existing
legislation.
After looking up CRISPR at Wikipedia, I can't imagine what the
relevant difference is supposed to be. What people, including me,
worry about is the pace of change and the environmental consequences
of increased biocide use, not the mechanism for genetic modification.
I agree. What CRISPR and similar techniques are going to do is
making this even more fast and cheap, by a large margin.

And anybody who doesn't know what it is, go inform yourself! We
need to know about this. Biotech is going to change our lives very
much in the near future, maybe as much as computers. It's the
other big thing.
--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 14:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Adam Funk
Selective breeding can only produce things that could exist in nature
(although more briefly & in sparser quantities under natural than
artificial selection), right? GM as the term is normally used can
produce things that could not exist otherwise.
I don't think so. AFAIK, a method used to get around strict
anti-GM laws is to produce many GM sorts in the lab (because it's
much faster this way), test them, and when you've chosen the most
promising variety, re-create it using selective breeding (and DNA
analysis).
Besides, I heard several researchers argue that the new
cut-and-paste methods like CRISPR-CAS are fundamentally different
from "traditional" GM and should be exempt from the existing
legislation.
Special pleading!
--
athel
Lewis
2017-05-18 01:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
Selective breeding can only produce things that could exist in nature
(although more briefly & in sparser quantities under natural than
artificial selection), right? GM as the term is normally used can
produce things that could not exist otherwise.
This is the sort of nonsense the ignorant tree-huggers raise, yes. It
has no basis in fact.
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
The issues with GMO crops are legal and regulatory excesses that
companies have gotten their bought-and-paid-for politicians to pass...
There's never been any shred of evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.
--
"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents -- except at
occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind
which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies)
rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of
the lamps that struggled against the darkness."
Adam Funk
2017-05-18 08:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
What about wheat, to choose an obvious example? The non-GM version,
commonly known as "grass seed", can't be found in the supermarkets
because nobody likes the taste. It took many generations of selective
breeding to produce the variety that we now use for making bread, among
other uses.
Selective breeding can only produce things that could exist in nature
(although more briefly & in sparser quantities under natural than
artificial selection), right? GM as the term is normally used can
produce things that could not exist otherwise.
This is the sort of nonsense the ignorant tree-huggers raise, yes. It
has no basis in fact.
Explain?
Post by Lewis
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
The issues with GMO crops are legal and regulatory excesses that
companies have gotten their bought-and-paid-for politicians to pass...
There's never been any shred of evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.
No, but there are legitimate concerns about businesses trying to make
a quick buck without concern for the long-term consequences --- there
are great opportunities to profit by exteralizing costs onto everyone
else. The work should really be done by non-profit research
organizations that can be trusted to produce (for example)
vitamin-enriched rice unencumbered by DRM-like techniques to keep
people in developing countries dependent on a foreign monopoly
supplier.
--
Consistently separating words by spaces became a general custom about
the tenth century A. D., and lasted until about 1957, when FORTRAN
abandoned the practice. --- Sun FORTRAN Reference Manual
Peter Moylan
2017-05-18 15:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
That's a major point, in my opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
Big Business is the enemy of the people.

We made a big mistake when we accepted the concept of "corporate person"
in corporate law. (For certain values of "we". Was that a majority
decision?) All of the evidence since then has shown that corporations do
not have a conscience, and do not accept that "the survival of humanity"
has a sufficient monetary value.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-18 19:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
We made a big mistake when we accepted the concept of "corporate person"
in corporate law. (For certain values of "we". Was that a majority
decision?) All of the evidence since then has shown that corporations do
not have a conscience, and do not accept that "the survival of humanity"
has a sufficient monetary value.
Well, those parts match the description of many individual persons,
so what's new, William?

And it can be argued (legitimately, I think) that the corporate attributes
are the result of the behavior of individual investors,
so what's new, William?

/dps "and 1066 wasn't the first, either"
Lewis
2017-05-18 21:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Adam Funk
And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
That's a major point, in my opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
Big Business is the enemy of the people.
Sure.

Also, small businesses, governments, NGOs, the planet itself, animals
and insects, many microbes and bacteria, and, of course, people.

In fact, people are probably the biggest enemy of people.
Post by Peter Moylan
We made a big mistake when we accepted the concept of "corporate person"
in corporate law. (For certain values of "we". Was that a majority
decision?) All of the evidence since then has shown that corporations do
not have a conscience, and do not accept that "the survival of humanity"
has a sufficient monetary value.
the idea of a corporation being a legal person is, at its core, a
sensible and necessary conceit; it has been perverted beyond all reason.
But in order for a corporation to function at all it must be able to
enter into contracts, for example.

You cannot have Fred Smith, CEO of Acme Inc enter into a contract to
lease property and then when Fred Smith dies, resigns, or is fired, have
that contract null and void. The contract must be with the legal entity
that is the corporation.
--
Well, we know where we're goin'
But we don't know where we've been
And we know what we're knowin'
But we can't say what we've seen
Robert Bannister
2017-05-19 00:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Adam Funk
And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
That's a major point, in my opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
Big Business is the enemy of the people.
Sure.
Also, small businesses, governments, NGOs, the planet itself, animals
and insects, many microbes and bacteria, and, of course, people.
In fact, people are probably the biggest enemy of people.
Post by Peter Moylan
We made a big mistake when we accepted the concept of "corporate person"
in corporate law. (For certain values of "we". Was that a majority
decision?) All of the evidence since then has shown that corporations do
not have a conscience, and do not accept that "the survival of humanity"
has a sufficient monetary value.
the idea of a corporation being a legal person is, at its core, a
sensible and necessary conceit; it has been perverted beyond all reason.
But in order for a corporation to function at all it must be able to
enter into contracts, for example.
You cannot have Fred Smith, CEO of Acme Inc enter into a contract to
lease property and then when Fred Smith dies, resigns, or is fired, have
that contract null and void. The contract must be with the legal entity
that is the corporation.
Why? Are all contracts intended to last for ever? Renewing a contract is
a fairly normal practice, I would have thought.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Cheryl
2017-05-19 00:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Adam Funk
And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
That's a major point, in my opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
Big Business is the enemy of the people.
Sure.
Also, small businesses, governments, NGOs, the planet itself, animals
and insects, many microbes and bacteria, and, of course, people.
In fact, people are probably the biggest enemy of people.
Post by Peter Moylan
We made a big mistake when we accepted the concept of "corporate person"
in corporate law. (For certain values of "we". Was that a majority
decision?) All of the evidence since then has shown that corporations do
not have a conscience, and do not accept that "the survival of humanity"
has a sufficient monetary value.
the idea of a corporation being a legal person is, at its core, a
sensible and necessary conceit; it has been perverted beyond all reason.
But in order for a corporation to function at all it must be able to
enter into contracts, for example.
You cannot have Fred Smith, CEO of Acme Inc enter into a contract to
lease property and then when Fred Smith dies, resigns, or is fired, have
that contract null and void. The contract must be with the legal entity
that is the corporation.
Why? Are all contracts intended to last for ever? Renewing a contract is
a fairly normal practice, I would have thought.
Yeah, but it is also normal to have contracts with corporate entities
for exactly the reasons given above. In an organization of any degree of
complexity, the employees would be continually renewing contracts
originally with people who have been promoted, fired, gone on extended
sick leave or died for everything from the pencils to that massive new
office building they want to buy unless you had a setup in which the
employee is acting on behalf of the business.
--
Cheryl
Tony Cooper
2017-05-19 01:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Adam Funk
And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
That's a major point, in my opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
Big Business is the enemy of the people.
Sure.
Also, small businesses, governments, NGOs, the planet itself, animals
and insects, many microbes and bacteria, and, of course, people.
In fact, people are probably the biggest enemy of people.
Post by Peter Moylan
We made a big mistake when we accepted the concept of "corporate person"
in corporate law. (For certain values of "we". Was that a majority
decision?) All of the evidence since then has shown that corporations do
not have a conscience, and do not accept that "the survival of humanity"
has a sufficient monetary value.
the idea of a corporation being a legal person is, at its core, a
sensible and necessary conceit; it has been perverted beyond all reason.
But in order for a corporation to function at all it must be able to
enter into contracts, for example.
You cannot have Fred Smith, CEO of Acme Inc enter into a contract to
lease property and then when Fred Smith dies, resigns, or is fired, have
that contract null and void. The contract must be with the legal entity
that is the corporation.
Why? Are all contracts intended to last for ever? Renewing a contract is
a fairly normal practice, I would have thought.
Yeah, but it is also normal to have contracts with corporate entities
for exactly the reasons given above. In an organization of any degree of
complexity, the employees would be continually renewing contracts
originally with people who have been promoted, fired, gone on extended
sick leave or died for everything from the pencils to that massive new
office building they want to buy unless you had a setup in which the
employee is acting on behalf of the business.
On of the reason one enters into a rental contract is to guarantee the
lea see a fixed cost over the period of the contract and to guarantee
the lessor a tenant for a fixed period of time. If that contract
would be voided by a change in personnel on either side, those
guarantees may be lost.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-18 14:33:58 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Lewis
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
The issues with GMO crops are legal and regulatory excesses that
companies have gotten their bought-and-paid-for politicians to pass...
There's never been any shred of evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.
For people. However, Roundup-ready crops allow the increased use
of Roundup that is an important reason for the drastic decline in
monarch butterflies and who knows how many other species.

http://xerces.org/monarchs/
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2017-05-18 21:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Lewis
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
The issues with GMO crops are legal and regulatory excesses that
companies have gotten their bought-and-paid-for politicians to pass...
There's never been any shred of evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.
For people. However, Roundup-ready crops allow the increased use
of Roundup that is an important reason for the drastic decline in
monarch butterflies and who knows how many other species.
That's like saying that goblets are bad because people can fill them
with plutonium. I'm not convinced that the cost/benefit of pesticide
resistant crops is worthwhile, but I'm not a farmer either. it seems
like the crop loss form pests about evens out with the monetary cost of
resistant seeds and more pesticides, but that is more a feeling than
anything based on actual knowledge.
--
They say only the good die young. If it works the other way too I'm
immortal
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-18 22:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Lewis
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
The issues with GMO crops are legal and regulatory excesses that
companies have gotten their bought-and-paid-for politicians to pass...
There's never been any shred of evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.
For people. However, Roundup-ready crops allow the increased use
of Roundup that is an important reason for the drastic decline in
monarch butterflies and who knows how many other species.
That's like saying that goblets are bad because people can fill them
with plutonium.
...

I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2017-05-19 00:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Lewis
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
The issues with GMO crops are legal and regulatory excesses that
companies have gotten their bought-and-paid-for politicians to pass...
There's never been any shred of evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.
For people. However, Roundup-ready crops allow the increased use
of Roundup that is an important reason for the drastic decline in
monarch butterflies and who knows how many other species.
That's like saying that goblets are bad because people can fill them
with plutonium.
...
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.

Killing weeds is a good thing.
--
Rick: And remember, this gun is pointed right at your heart. Captain
Renault: That is my *least* vulnerable spot
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-19 00:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
Not for the insects depending on them ... and where the beneficial insects
are involved, not so good for us.

And heavy use of Roundup promotes Roundup-resistance,
as does cross-species natural gene exchange (Jerry's observation)
so Roundup and Roundup-Ready crops eventually become valueless.

(I'm pro-GMO, but also pro-EvaluateCarefully, and don't approve of Monsanto
going after farmers who AREN'T trying to have RR plants.)

/dps "see also the unintended consequences of the Law of Unintended Consequences"
Peter Moylan
2017-05-19 02:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
The definition of "weed" is subjective. A weed is any plant you don't want.

(Although, as a gardener, I am often tempted to say that a weed is any
plant that prospers.)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
David Kleinecke
2017-05-19 04:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
The definition of "weed" is subjective. A weed is any plant you don't want.
(Although, as a gardener, I am often tempted to say that a weed is any
plant that prospers.)
Around here "weed" means cannabis.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-05-19 10:37:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 May 2017 21:19:26 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
The definition of "weed" is subjective. A weed is any plant you don't want.
(Although, as a gardener, I am often tempted to say that a weed is any
plant that prospers.)
Around here "weed" means cannabis.
Sometime last century a female relative from Australia (in her early
20s) was visiting us in Britain. She looked at a map and was interested
and amused to see an island named Mull. The only meaning of "mull" that
she knew was cannabis/marijuana.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Janet
2017-05-19 13:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 18 May 2017 21:19:26 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
The definition of "weed" is subjective. A weed is any plant you don't want.
(Although, as a gardener, I am often tempted to say that a weed is any
plant that prospers.)
Around here "weed" means cannabis.
I spent the whole morning digging up weeds. Wanna buy some?
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sometime last century a female relative from Australia (in her early
20s) was visiting us in Britain. She looked at a map and was interested
and amused to see an island named Mull. The only meaning of "mull" that
she knew was cannabis/marijuana.
Years ago I had a serious visitation from an indignant Scottish
neighbour who had caught her teen son "smoking a joint" which he
confessed it was weed he'd stolen from my secret cannabis plantation
"hidden from view".
My supposedly "hidden" veg patch was in the only sheltered corner
of a very exposed Scottish high moorland garden. I assured her it's
impossible to grow cannabis outdoors in Scotland but she insisted "He
told me exactly where you're growing it" and marched me off for the
showdown.

Turned out her son had misidentified my sweetcorn patch...

Janet.

Jerry Friedman
2017-05-19 11:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
The definition of "weed" is subjective. A weed is any plant you don't want.
(Although, as a gardener, I am often tempted to say that a weed is any
plant that prospers.)
Around here "weed" means cannabis.
The same everywhere else in the U.S. and Canada, as far as I know,
in the right context.
--
Jerry Friedman
Mack A. Damia
2017-05-19 04:24:00 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 May 2017 12:19:38 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
The definition of "weed" is subjective. A weed is any plant you don't want.
(Although, as a gardener, I am often tempted to say that a weed is any
plant that prospers.)
Said by Billy Boy Walker played by Bill Pullman in the film, "The
Killer Inside Me" :

"A weed is a plant out of place. I find a hollyhock in my cornfield,
and it's a weed. I find it in my yard, and it's a flower."
bill van
2017-05-19 06:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Fri, 19 May 2017 12:19:38 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
The definition of "weed" is subjective. A weed is any plant you don't want.
(Although, as a gardener, I am often tempted to say that a weed is any
plant that prospers.)
Said by Billy Boy Walker played by Bill Pullman in the film, "The
"A weed is a plant out of place. I find a hollyhock in my cornfield,
and it's a weed. I find it in my yard, and it's a flower."
The next time I find a planting of dandelions in someone's window box
will be the first.
--
bill
Cheryl
2017-05-19 09:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill van
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Fri, 19 May 2017 12:19:38 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
The definition of "weed" is subjective. A weed is any plant you don't want.
(Although, as a gardener, I am often tempted to say that a weed is any
plant that prospers.)
Said by Billy Boy Walker played by Bill Pullman in the film, "The
"A weed is a plant out of place. I find a hollyhock in my cornfield,
and it's a weed. I find it in my yard, and it's a flower."
The next time I find a planting of dandelions in someone's window box
will be the first.
There are a few plants around here that were introduced as ornamental
plants and became the most noxious of weeds. There's one locally called
"bamboo" (I have no idea of it's proper biological classification) which
is nearly impossible to eradicate if some previous gardener planted it.
--
Cheryl
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-19 11:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Lewis
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
The issues with GMO crops are legal and regulatory excesses that
companies have gotten their bought-and-paid-for politicians to pass...
There's never been any shred of evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.
For people. However, Roundup-ready crops allow the increased use
of Roundup that is an important reason for the drastic decline in
monarch butterflies and who knows how many other species.
That's like saying that goblets are bad because people can fill them
with plutonium.
...
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
So if you had a magic wand that could kill every milkweed plant in
North America, except those that people planted in gardens, you
would?

Killing weeds isn't harmless--it has an environmental cost. When
it can be done really effectively, it can lead to extinction or
near-extinction of the weed, the organisms that depend on it, the
organisms that depend on them, etc. GMOs have made this possible
for the first time, and people are doing it.

(I'm visiting my mother, and I've been killing or seriously
inconveniencing weeds in her yard. I don't think that will lead
to serious environmental costs.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 12:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Killing weeds is a good thing.
So if you had a magic wand that could kill every milkweed plant in
North America, except those that people planted in gardens, you
would?
For a week or so every year (in the spring?), the streets of the Near North neighborhood
of Chicago are covered with the seed-parachutes of the cottonwood trees. I never did
figure out where they were all coming from.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Killing weeds isn't harmless--it has an environmental cost. When
it can be done really effectively, it can lead to extinction or
near-extinction of the weed, the organisms that depend on it, the
organisms that depend on them, etc. GMOs have made this possible
for the first time, and people are doing it.
(I'm visiting my mother, and I've been killing or seriously
inconveniencing weeds in her yard. I don't think that will lead
to serious environmental costs.)
Janet
2017-05-19 12:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Lewis
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
The issues with GMO crops are legal and regulatory excesses that
companies have gotten their bought-and-paid-for politicians to pass...
There's never been any shred of evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.
For people. However, Roundup-ready crops allow the increased use
of Roundup that is an important reason for the drastic decline in
monarch butterflies and who knows how many other species.
That's like saying that goblets are bad because people can fill them
with plutonium.
...
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
You seem to think the only outcome of using roundup is damaging the
environment. This is, of course, not the case.
Killing weeds is a good thing.
Making weeds resistant to glyphosate, is not a good thing.

https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/agronomy/library/glyphosate-
resistance-in-weeds/

In a similar vein

Antibiotics are a good thing; they transformed the treatment of
infections. The misuse of them creates antibiotic resistance, which is a
very bad thing.

Janet

Janet
Adam Funk
2017-05-19 12:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Lewis
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not arguing that GM is bad, but it probably requires more careful
handling. And I doubt that big business can be trusted with it.
The issues with GMO crops are legal and regulatory excesses that
companies have gotten their bought-and-paid-for politicians to pass...
There's never been any shred of evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.
For people. However, Roundup-ready crops allow the increased use
of Roundup that is an important reason for the drastic decline in
monarch butterflies and who knows how many other species.
That's like saying that goblets are bad because people can fill them
with plutonium.
...
I don't see how it's like that. The only purpose of Roundup-ready
crops is to let people kill more weeds, with resulting environmental
damage.
The real purpose of Roundup-ready crops is to sell as much Roundup as
possible.
--
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
--- Ambrose Bierce
Lewis
2017-05-18 01:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Janet
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
...and nearly all of them have nothing whatsoever to do
with being "organic" - per your link.
<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bio+yogurt+tesco&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiskJmhkfLTAhWCK8AKHf1vAHEQ_AUIBygC&biw=1183&bih=530>
Post by Janet
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
You've missed "GM" off your list of things "omitted" :)
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
I don't understand what you are saying. The food I don't eat is not
relevant to talking about genetically modified foods.
Post by Harrison Hill
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
Farm bred meat has been *bred*. Cows are bred to produce more meat and
to be more docile just as sheep are breed for more wool and corn is
bred to be edible (Corn doesn't exist in nature at all, it was entirely
constructed by combining other plants) and carrots are bred to be what
we think of as carrots (wild carrots are nearly nothing like farmed
carrots), etc. etc.
Post by Harrison Hill
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
Yes, genetically modified. We call it GMO over here, but the point is
*all* the food comes from genetically modified sources. We've been
genetically modifying food since the first time someone had the idea of
planting a crop or raising an animal.
Post by Harrison Hill
"In 1998 we became the worlds first national food retailer to ban
genetically modified (GM) ingredients from our own products".
Which is, of course, ridiculous. But, as we see in Washington, you can
sell any idiocy if you use fear to sell it.
--
He glanced cautiously at the dancing shapes, which made weird and
worrying shapes on the far wall - strange biped animals, eldritch
underground things... Carrot sighed. 'Stop making shadow pictures,
Detritus.'
Robert Bannister
2017-05-19 00:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Janet
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It's well known here, there are umpteen "bio" yoghurts and drinks
on UK supermarket shelves
...and nearly all of them have nothing whatsoever to do
with being "organic" - per your link.
<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bio+yogurt+tesco&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiskJmhkfLTAhWCK8AKHf1vAHEQ_AUIBygC&biw=1183&bih=530>
Post by Janet
Post by occam
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
You've missed "GM" off your list of things "omitted" :)
As it should be. Unless you are eating exclusively wild game, all the
food you eat is GM.
Why are you ruling out all the food you *don't* eat?
I don't understand what you are saying. The food I don't eat is not
relevant to talking about genetically modified foods.
Post by Harrison Hill
How is "wild game" different to farm bred meat in your
distinction? What about crops and flowers and bees and honey?
Farm bred meat has been *bred*. Cows are bred to produce more meat and
to be more docile just as sheep are breed for more wool and corn is
bred to be edible (Corn doesn't exist in nature at all, it was entirely
constructed by combining other plants) and carrots are bred to be what
we think of as carrots (wild carrots are nearly nothing like farmed
carrots), etc. etc.
Something that has taken hundreds of years or longer, so we can be sure
they are safe to eat. In addition, farmer are allowed to keep back some
of the wheat or potatoes or carrots for seed. Not so with Monsanto products.
Post by Lewis
Post by Harrison Hill
You know as well as I do what "GM" means.
Yes, genetically modified. We call it GMO over here, but the point is
*all* the food comes from genetically modified sources. We've been
genetically modifying food since the first time someone had the idea of
planting a crop or raising an animal.
Post by Harrison Hill
"In 1998 we became the worlds first national food retailer to ban
genetically modified (GM) ingredients from our own products".
Which is, of course, ridiculous. But, as we see in Washington, you can
sell any idiocy if you use fear to sell it.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Peter Moylan
2017-05-16 05:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
"Pure" works in both languages.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
CDB
2017-05-16 12:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of
food which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain
that this is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in
Continental Europe.
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an
accurate description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free
foodstuff it attempts to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a
good word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has
a French origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
"Pure" works in both languages.
Or "real".

Best dietary rule I've seen is

1. Eat real food,
2. Not too much,
3. Mostly from plants;

(I think the framers of that rule defined "real food" as
"something your grandmother would have agreed was food". Maybe by now
that would have to be "great-grandmother" for most people.)
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-16 18:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Best dietary rule I've seen is
1. Eat real food,
2. Not too much,
3. Mostly from plants;
(I think the framers of that rule defined "real food" as
"something your grandmother would have agreed was food". Maybe by now
that would have to be "great-grandmother" for most people.)
Bread you can pound nails with? Headcheese? Haggis?

(I think there's still room to allow marrow without sacrificing too much of modern sensibilities.)

/dps
CDB
2017-05-16 23:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
Best dietary rule I've seen is
1. Eat real food, 2. Not too much, 3. Mostly from plants;
(I think the framers of that rule defined "real food" as "something
your grandmother would have agreed was food". Maybe by now that
would have to be "great-grandmother" for most people.)
Bread you can pound nails with? Headcheese? Haggis?
(I think there's still room to allow marrow without sacrificing too
much of modern sensibilities.)
It's certainly real, though not mostly from plants; so too much may not
be much.
s***@gowanhill.com
2017-05-18 11:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
(I think the framers of that rule defined "real food" as
"something your grandmother would have agreed was food". Maybe by now
that would have to be "great-grandmother" for most people.)
Haggis?
Still consumed daily in Scotland. I had some last week.

And it wasn't even deep-fried ... it was tinned.

Owain
Janet
2017-05-18 13:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
(I think the framers of that rule defined "real food" as
"something your grandmother would have agreed was food". Maybe by now
that would have to be "great-grandmother" for most people.)
Haggis?
Still consumed daily in Scotland. I had some last week.
And it wasn't even deep-fried ... it was tinned.
Owain
I love haggis all year round, we don't just save it for Burns night.

Butchers here compete to make the best haggis from their secret
recipe.

Janet
Pierre Jelenc
2017-05-16 06:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
A la mode.

Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
occam
2017-05-16 08:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Jelenc
Post by occam
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
A la mode.
:-). Do you mind dropping my wife a note to that effect?
Peter Moylan
2017-05-16 17:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Jelenc
Post by occam
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
A la mode.
We have been told that in some countries that means "with ice cream".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-16 21:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Pierre Jelenc
Post by occam
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
A la mode.
We have been told that in some countries that means "with ice cream".
Said of pie. Even "cake a la mode" doesn't seem right.
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 07:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
More a phrase than a word, but what they use on eau is:

"au naturel".
Janet
2017-05-16 13:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
"au naturel".
? au and eau are not synonyms

Janet
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 15:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
"au naturel".
? au and eau are not synonyms
I never was any good at French; but you'd need to be spectacularly
useless at it, to not know that "water" and whatever "au" means
are not synonyms.

<https://world.openfoodfacts.org/product/3564700459430/thon-entier-albacore-au-naturel-peche-ocean>
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-16 18:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
"au naturel".
? au and eau are not synonyms
You are barely correct.

/dps
Quinn C
2017-05-17 22:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily. What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
"au naturel".
? au and eau are not synonyms
You are barely correct.
Nude Food is a buzzy cafe serving real food with real taste using
seasonal and local ingredients. Good old-fashioned in house
baking, Illy coffee and realistically priced wines ...

Very buzz(word)y indeed.
--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-17 12:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
In a recent chat with a BrE friend I mentioned a certain brand of food
which I described as 'bio'. She drew a blank. I had to explain that this
is short for organic foodstuff ('biologique') in Continental Europe.
It struck me that neither word (organic, biologique) is an accurate
description of colouring-flavouring-additive-free foodstuff it attempts
to describe. (Inorganic pizza anyone?)
"Organic food" in English means the plants were grown without a long
list of concentrated, mostly industrially made fertilizers, and biocides,
and the animals were fed organically grown feed and not fed certain
industrially made chemicals, and nothing involved had laboratory genetic modifications.
Post by occam
'Wholefoods' are not additive-free necessarily.
And organic or /biologiques/ foods aren't necessarily whole. I'm
getting annoyed that in Whole Foods Market's large selection of freshly
baked bread, I often can't find anything made with whole wheat.

(Since we've discussed "fresh bread" here before, I'll mention that
not all the dough for that bread is freshly made.)
Post by occam
What would be a good
word to describe 'bio' food? (You score double if the word has a French
origin, thus recognisable in French and English.)
I've never heard of one.
--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...