GM food- Good/Bad?

Scroll to see replies

Jonatan

Well, purely mathematically there is no reasonm to limit ourself to 2 or 3 dimensions. In quantum mechanics, as an example, the ket vector describing an electrons position has an INFINITE number of dimensions. A bit difficult to draw a diagram though....

Yes i know, but I couldn't be bothered going through all the different dimensions etc. :rolleyes:

Reply 61

riffraff

Jonatan

Well, you would find it interesting to know that the nutritional value of lenice today is about 20% less than what it was during WW2. This is because farmers has developed breeds that grow as quick as possibel to ensure maximum output, on the expense of quality.

they also grow them for sweeter taste as well i.e. with more sugar- so vegetables are now more fattening than they use to be.

Reply 62

Jonatan

bono

It just seems weird, "programmed". Is it possible?

All cells has a built in self destruct function. This is there to limit cell growth. Cells lacking this function ude to genetic mutations or a viral infection can quickly run amock and keep on replicating without regulations. This is a central feature of cancer. What some companies has done is to take controll of these mechanisms and genetically engineered their seed to selfdestruct their reproductive systems if they are treated with a special chemical. The chemical doesnt hurt the original seed, but the offspring will be sterile. This is a way of "copy protecting" the product. Of course, another company may simply clone the seed and remove the selfdestruct geene, but thats another story...

Reply 63

riffraff

do you mean fertilisers? because it is generally the nitrates in fertilisers which cause eutrophication.

Chemicals etc yes.

Including herbisicides, pesticides etc

Reply 64

username9816

Jonatan

OK, cool. Thanks for that.

Reply 65

Jonatan

Of course, another company may simply clone the seed and remove the selfdestruct geene, but thats another story...

Patents would surely stop that practise.

Reply 66

Jonatan

riffraff

they also grow them for sweeter taste as well i.e. with more sugar- so vegetables are now more fattening than they use to be.

Actually, most vegetables have a net negative of calori intake because the body uses more energy to digest them than what is contained. So the propper wording would perhaps be that they are closer to being fattening. Also, if peopel switch to vegetables from meat and butter, then I am not so certain that the net result is negative. These vegetables are still quite healthy and the better taste may cause peopel to eat less animalic fat, which is a good thing.

Reply 67

riffraff

2776

Chemicals etc yes.

Including herbisicides, pesticides etc

herbicides and pesticides do not cause eutrophication- they do damage wildlife because of concentrations of the toxins increasing up the food chain. GM foods may actually require more fertilisers if they are HYVs (high yield varieties). so using GM food could increase the incidences of eutrophication.

Reply 68

Jonatan

2776

Patents would surely stop that practise.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. It depends on what the government will find benefitial. There is quite a movement in favour of decreasing the rights patents should give because several companeis ahs been accused of abusing them.

Reply 69

riffraff

Jonatan

Actually, most vegetables have a net negative of calori intake because the body uses more energy to digest them than what is contained

there is no such thing as a vegetable with a net negative calorie intake. I'm sorry but that is just a myth- many vegetables do have a low calorific value e.g. spinach and green beans- but no vegetable has negative calories- even celery :wink:

These vegetables are still quite healthy and the better taste may cause peopel to eat less animalic fat, which is a good thing.

absolutely- but it's a bugger for us vegetarians

Reply 70

riffraff

2776

Patents would surely stop that practise.

Reply 71

Jonatan

riffraff

Correction: Using GM food MAY perhaps turn out to increase the incidences of eutrophication. Also, even though GM food may requier more fertilisers you would not need as many plants, and so teh gross use of fertilizer may actually decrease. This all depends on teh specific product of course. If you tried your best I am sure you could cerate a plant which would be devestating to the environment. But then, you may simply restrict the use of herbecides and fertiliser, no need to prohibit GM.

Reply 72

riffraff

But with multi national companies, copying another company's patent will result in law courts.

Thats why they have them.

Reply 73

riffraff

Jonatan

Correction: Using GM food MAY perhaps turn out to increase the incidences of eutrophication.

that's the gist of what I said

Also, even though GM food may requier more fertilisers you would not need as many plants, and so teh gross use of fertilizer may actually decrease.

nope, we'll just grow more food and have two grain mountains instead of one :rolleyes:

This all depends on teh specific product of course. If you tried your best I am sure you could cerate a plant which would be devestating to the environment. But then, you may simply restrict the use of herbecides and fertiliser, no need to prohibit GM.

that is what the british government is doing at the moment

Reply 74

Jonatan

riffraff

absolutely- but it's a bugger for us vegetarians

Depends how you do the calculation. If you count the energy used by teh Jaws and teh stomach, any food with a low enough calorific value will in effect be negative callorie. If you chew all day on a plant which is 99% digestive fibres, you will burn more calories than you absorb. Of course, once the nutrition is in your bloodstream you dont have much negative calories. Statistics is very often more about how you measure things and not what you are measuring.

Reply 75

hornblower

riffraff

It was meant to prevent authors from copying books.

Reply 76

riffraff

2776

But with multi national companies, copying another company's patent will result in law courts.

Thats why they have them.

true- but what if the company is a research company in an LEDC- trying to get seeds to poor farmers who may not be able to afford new seeds each year? that company will probably not be a multinational and may not be convicte due tothe helpful nature of it's work. of course that is just one isolated example- and you are right- usually they would be convicted

Reply 77

Jonatan

riffraff

nope, we'll just grow more food and have two grain mountains instead of one :rolleyes:

Actually teh excess production is due to governmental subsidies. If over production is a problem it can easily be solved through indirect taxation. I think people here have a tendency to blaim the science when in fact it is the Government that is causing the problems. If you imposed a 40% tax on environmentally damaging production methods, then I can guarantee that the results of GM would be positive for the environment. The problem is that the Government is to bad at promoting environmentally friendly methods of production, not GM technologies.

Reply 78

riffraff

Jonatan

most plants have a lot of starch in them which is broken down using enzymes into glucose. very few plants if any are 99% digestive fibres, and if they were we probably wouldn't eat them because we don't have the capacity to digest them anymore.

Reply 79

riffraff

Yep, the research company. Just use any of today's analogy. eg a research company in Equador with no patent rights, making say ink cartridges cheaply, using a patented method by HP or Epson.

Chances are they will be found out and busted.

So yes.