View Full Version : How do you feel about GMO's?


sarahsweets
05-21-15, 07:36 AM
I had no idea where to put this so move if necessary.
I was wondering how people felt about GMO's? I'll admit, when I first heard about them I assumed they were bad. The name genetically modified organism's sounds scary and the conspiracy theoryist in me wanted to look at it as some kind of secret mind control, sheep making government plot however now that Ive read the science behind them, they seem pretty safe. There's alot of debate about them and the labeling of them lately and it seems like pseudoscience is getting more press. I was really impressed when Bill Nye came out and stated that his previous thoughts on GMO"s was flawed and he supports the science behind it.

I've also noticed that alot of people against them also seem to be of the anti-vaxxer crowd.
What do you guys think? The one thing I do support is labeling. If someone wants to ignore science and buy non-GMO foods, let them. Every consumer deserves the right to that information.

TygerSan
05-21-15, 08:11 AM
I'm less worried about personal health effects. To me, the resulting plants aren't much different from what was produced via crossbreeding/grafting, and other methods of hybridization. It's just a slightly different (sped up) process.

Labeling is important, especially for allergies and sensitivities, as there may be odd proteins in the mix that one wouldn't normally expect when eating an apple, say.

I don't know a lot about the environmental impact of GMOs, but I think that's probably where the biggest problem with them may lie.

Little Missy
05-21-15, 08:58 AM
It is SO vast when you think that livestock are being fed GMO also.

Unmanagable
05-21-15, 12:37 PM
I've painfully learned to listen to my body over solely trusting scientific data, even though that doesn't seem to be a popular thing to do amongst most of the masses. I've also learned the flow of the dough has a lot to do with the outcomes of much of what is looked at as relevant data and people receiving that dough will lie and manipulate data to meet their needs. The flow of my innards and the ongoing purposeful negligence and damaging effects on other living things in the process of the creation of all the modified creations remains my main focus.

When peeps choose to toss around the terminology that greatly lessens the possibilities of balanced discussion before it even gets started, such as pseudoscience, sheep, and conspiracy theories, I tend to choose to move along and continue to happily eat my non-GMO foods and enjoy a level of health and overall well-being that I've not known until I purposely eliminated that stuff from my diet. There's a better and much healthier way to grow more food to feed more peeps, but not being the popular one or the heavily funded and researched one, it looks like the GMO food-like substances will be around for a while.

Labeling should definitely take place, but if you look at the current way things are labeled, such as continually renaming and leaving out dangerous additives so folks no longer know what to look for, while most seem to blindly trust that alphabet agencies charged with looking out for the public's well-being are being honest and transparent, that doesn't do much to bring comfort and trust to the big picture, at least not to me.

Corina86
05-21-15, 02:00 PM
They're a necessity. With an ever growing world population, feeding everyone is going to get a lot more difficult and the only ways to increase food production are to: cultivate wider areas (by cutting down forests, usually), use pesticides and insecticides (which come with their own health risks) and genetically modifying food to grow in less fertile soils and be more resistant to pests. The last one seems to be the safest to me. Tests are important, labelling is important, I think some health risks are unavoidable- lots of people died before we finally figured out what is edible and what is not-, but dangerous substances will probably be removed with more genetic engineering, so, in time, GMO's might become even healthier than normal food. The one thing that I fear most is that the authorities in charge or tests the health risks and benefits will be corrupt and not look out for the public's best interest. So, the more test-labs, the better.

BellaVita
05-21-15, 05:57 PM
I've never believed in the anti-GMO crap.

Here's a very brief yet informative video that talks about studies regarding GMOs, and basically shows how they're really safe:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gKO9s0zLthU

sarahsweets
05-21-15, 06:09 PM
When peeps choose to toss around the terminology that greatly lessens the possibilities of balanced discussion before it even gets started, such as pseudoscience, sheep, and conspiracy theories, I tend to choose to move along and continue to happily eat my non-GMO foods and enjoy a level of health and overall well-being that I've not known until I purposely eliminated that stuff from my diet.

How does me calling myself a conspiracy theorist, that fears the mind controlling sheep making government lesson the possibility of a balanced discussion. I didnt say people who dont like GMO's are like that, I spoke about my issues. And pseudoscience is a loose term that talks about things that do not have the science to back them up, which in the case of GMO's there is science to back them up.

eclectic beagle
05-21-15, 06:27 PM
Hmm. GMOs. I like myself pretty well I guess.

Unmanagable
05-21-15, 07:13 PM
How does me calling myself a conspiracy theorist, that fears the mind controlling sheep making government lesson the possibility of a balanced discussion. I didnt say people who dont like GMO's are like that, I spoke about my issues. And pseudoscience is a loose term that talks about things that do not have the science to back them up, which in the case of GMO's there is science to back them up.

That's right......you said people who don't like gmos are like anti-vaxers. My bad. I shared how I feel about the terminology used to discuss topics that automatically get dismissed more often than not due to various media buzz words that typically shut people down from wanting to hear experience if it doesn't line up with a peer reviewed study somewhere. Yes, data is good, but it isn't everything.

You asked how we feel about gmo stuff specifically, though, so I guess I stretched my opinion out a little further to include how I feel about how the conversations are often started, then dismissed. I'm personally tired of being an unwilling science experiment at the mercy of corporations and scientists.

I feel I get dangerously close to the somewhat strictly prohibited topic of politics when I try to discuss public health and food related issues here. Even more so, I tend to get sidetracked by my personal and emotionally charged experiences of living with the consequences of eating stuff my body didn't recognize and couldn't healthily process for most of my life, even though all of it was agency approved and created stuff that science deemed "safe" and "nutritious".

Little Missy
05-21-15, 07:36 PM
I sort of see it like vehicles not made in the US. They are already here and have been for a looooong time. GMO's are already in almost everything we eat, wear, and slather upon ourselves and have been for a loooong time.

Pretty widespread.

Little Missy
05-21-15, 09:51 PM
I sort of see it like vehicles not made in the US. They are already here and have been for a looooong time. GMO's are already in almost everything we eat, wear, and slather upon ourselves and have been for a loooong time.

Pretty widespread.

But that does not mean I like it.

KarmanMonkey
05-22-15, 03:33 PM
I have no problems with GMO, under certain conditions:
1) They are changes that don't interfere with nutrition (a lot of the more resilient wheat strains are much less healthy than the older ones, which is why people look for "ancient grains" these days)

2) They don't have a negative economic/societal impact (for example, the farmer suicides in India, though it was becoming an issue before GM crops, became much more intense and complex when those crops were introduced/pushed into their economy)

Fortune
05-22-15, 08:34 PM
Humans have been making GMOs since forever ago. That's how agriculture works, for example.

mildadhd
05-22-15, 09:18 PM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4l39b1ESVs



P

mctavish23
05-23-15, 12:17 AM
It's hard to avoid chinese food AND managed care at the same time :scratch:


u r welcome :cool:

namazu
05-23-15, 02:12 AM
Humans have been making GMOs since forever ago. That's how agriculture works, for example.
There's a big potential difference, though, between

a) the kind of "genetic modification" that occurs through hybridization between related plants or animals (which happens in nature, and has been "helped along" by intentional crossbreeding by humans for ages) -- which is not what is usually meant by the term "GMO",

and

b) the kind of "genetic modification" in which genes from species that might or might not naturally hybridize in nature -- sometimes even from completely different types of organisms (http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-transgenic-organisms.htm)-- are inserted into the genome of an organism in a lab. Examples: Bt corn (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/pop_genetic_gallery/page2.html)(engineered to produce a larvicidal toxin normally produced by Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria) and "Roundup-ready" crops (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/pop_genetic_gallery/page4.html) (which are tolerant to a commercial herbicide, so that fields can be sprayed without killing the desired crop). The cat's out of the bag at that point; these genes, once introduced into an organism, could then propagate via the "natural" channels: if you're a farmer, and your field is across the road from a field with GMOs, your crop could potentially be cross-pollinated with the crop from the other field, and the seeds your crop produces could contain transgenes, whether or not you want them to.

My personal opinion is that A isn't always an unmitigated good, and B isn't necessarily an unmitigated evil (and in some cases, may have real benefits), but B has increased potential for unintended (and potentially serious) consequences to human health and/or to the environment.

There are also some social/economic/legal issues with intellectual property rights (http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/03/30/us-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gmo-patents-demand-right-to-conventional-crops/print/); for example, contractual agreements prohibit seed collection/propagation by farmers who plant certain types of commercially-patented GMO crops, and there are issues with farmers whose fields become contaminated with seeds from other fields.

I do support labeling (ideally, with specifics; just saying "GMO" doesn't give enough meaningful info), don't believe GMOs should be vilified en masse, and do believe that caution is warranted.

Fortune
05-23-15, 02:47 AM
My point is that humans have been modifying crops for as long as there have been crops. I realize that is not what is usually meant by "GMO" but I do think that a lot of the furor over GMOs has more to do with Luddite attitudes than with genuine problems that GMOs can cause, and there's almost a willful unwillingness to acknowledge that GMO is not a difference in category, but rather a difference of degree.

namazu
05-23-15, 03:15 AM
My point is that humans have been modifying crops for as long as there have been crops. I realize that is not what is usually meant by "GMO" but I do think that a lot of the furor over GMOs has more to do with Luddite attitudes than with genuine problems that GMOs can cause, and there's almost a willful unwillingness to acknowledge that GMO is not a difference in category, but rather a difference of degree.
Yes, I agree that in some cases, the objection/hysteria is a knee-jerk reaction.

But there are real scientific and ethical concerns. This article does a nice job of summarizing some of them. (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/schulman/tomatoes.html)

And while it's a "difference of degree" in the sense that yes, the plants and animals people have grown for food have long borne the imprint of our interventions, it is a "difference in category" in the sense that some (not all) GMOs represent hybrids that would not have been possible to obtain by any amount of selective breeding.

Again, I'm not saying that GMOs are inherently awful, just that it's unfair to broad-brush dissenters as ignoramuses and Luddites (even if some of them may well be).

sarahsweets
05-24-15, 06:36 AM
That's right......you said people who don't like gmos are like anti-vaxers. .

I said alot of people against them seem to be antivaxers and I only meant that as in not understanding or caring about the science behind them. Antecdotal(SP) evidence is very real. I would never discount someone's experiences because thats how we humans roll- we do things and when they work for us, we are happy and it wont matter what someone else says or does. Listen, I would never have put an ounce of belief in accupuncture. It went against everything I thought. Then I tried it for tension and relaxation. It made a huge difference and I dont care if people think it was in my head, or a placebo or if there is a lack of science behind it. It worked for me.

Skyf@ll
05-24-15, 04:56 PM
They're a necessity. With an ever growing world population, feeding everyone is going to get a lot more difficult and the only ways to increase food production are to: cultivate wider areas (by cutting down forests, usually), use pesticides and insecticides (which come with their own health risks) and genetically modifying food to grow in less fertile soils and be more resistant to pests. The last one seems to be the safest to me. Tests are important, labelling is important, I think some health risks are unavoidable- lots of people died before we finally figured out what is edible and what is not-, but dangerous substances will probably be removed with more genetic engineering, so, in time, GMO's might become even healthier than normal food. The one thing that I fear most is that the authorities in charge or tests the health risks and benefits will be corrupt and not look out for the public's best interest. So, the more test-labs, the better.

Yes I totally agree. Better now than later on.

To get 10kg of meat from a cow you need to grow 385kg of vegetable mass!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/vegetarians-right--well-run-out-4144519

The same goes with creating sustainable sources of energy like wind farms. The technology is improving rapidly making them more powerful and efficient.


Fossil fuels ARE declining rapidly.

meadd823
05-24-15, 05:10 PM
I worry most about their effects upon other species and whether or not they harm "helpful" insect populations such as bees, butterflies and even the birds who eat them.

How many people have been quietly effected by mad cow before any one spoke up as the article namazu contended that government over sight agencies have failed miserably the past to provide protection to the publics food supply..... with people dying BEFORE the problem is identified.



I feel genetically modified foods to be problematic because while the genetics of some plants have been modified the rest of nature has not ... I avoid GMOs and wish they were properly labeled so I could be more vigilant and effective in my avoidance - I have GI problems and have a family history of GI problem going back ohh about fifty or so years. I tend to feel better if I avoid corns, and grains.... I am allergic to tomatoes and other citrus fruits.

I think GMOs are along the line of mad cow disease ...we fed cows the remains of other ill cows for a long time before we discovered it was a problem .....Humans tend to leap then look .......:rolleyes:


Introduction to BSE (http://eden.lsu.edu/topics/agdisasters/bse/pages/default.aspx)

It is believed that people who have developed vCJD became infected by consuming cattle products contaminated with the BSE agent.


another way of putting it


Mad Cow Disease
What the Government Isn't Telling You! (http://www.drday.com/madcow.htm)

Prions exist, but it is extremely doubtful that the Prion is the "CAUSE" of ANY disease. Prions are much more likely to be the "RESULT" of a sick and dying body. Prions are most probably a RESPONSE to the illness that was actually CAUSED by a grossly improper diet and other unhealthy lifestyle factors. "Factory farming" of animals, with the massive use of hormones, pesticides and other harmful substances destroy the animal's immune system. When these diseased animals are eaten by people, then the people get sick and die

So the problem was in the way the cows were raised, the response to the environment caused the variation meaning even naturally occurring changes can be harmful so what makes us think un-natural ones are okay.

Cows were taken from their natural habitat of open fields and grazing pastures to cramped little holes of existence and wala disease ... so we some how think producing an entirely un-natural plant is going to be free from bad consequences .......



Although statically speaking the number of people known to have died from "mad cow" are small if you are one of those numbers it would hardly seem to be a "small matter" .

I may be some form of conspiracy theorists or wtf ever for NOT wanting to be a lab rat to the food industry but frankly I do not give a flying frog what others think.

For the record the initial post did lean toward a biases and read as dismissive to those of us who tend to think GMOs are a bad idea ..... soo offense by some should be expected...Lucky for me my give a damn broke long ago so I am simply responding to the question being asked as I believe offense was not the intent of the OP.

Unmanagable
05-24-15, 09:46 PM
I said alot of people against them seem to be antivaxers and I only meant that as in not understanding or caring about the science behind them. Antecdotal(SP) evidence is very real. I would never discount someone's experiences because thats how we humans roll- we do things and when they work for us, we are happy and it wont matter what someone else says or does. Listen, I would never have put an ounce of belief in accupuncture. It went against everything I thought. Then I tried it for tension and relaxation. It made a huge difference and I dont care if people think it was in my head, or a placebo or if there is a lack of science behind it. It worked for me.

Acupuncture rocks!! Often times, speaking solely from my experiences, understanding and caring about the science behind stuff has been exactly what has led me to be more "anti stuff" than I ever was. Vaccines, food related issues, medicines, etc. My intuitive and physical responses trump what's on paper, paper can always be manipulated, and results are ever changing. I want peeps to think way beyond the science, but I often times suck at expressing what I understand and feel.

willow129
05-25-15, 09:51 AM
The one thing I do support is labeling. If someone wants to ignore science and buy non-GMO foods, let them. Every consumer deserves the right to that information.

Totally completely agree with this.


What makes me uncomfortable with GMOs is not what they do to you, health effects, etc. It's that the companies that make them seem to be monopolizing food. There are farms that have had pollen blown onto their fields/cross pollination by bees and can be sued by GMO companies for not buying the seeds. This effectively puts farms out of business for something that wasn't their fault. I mean Monsanto has a thing on their website that says as long as the percentage of their crops in yours is very low, they won't sue but...they've never lost a case either. They make patents on all these varieties...my boyfriend knows more about this but it seems to me that it's making growing our own food and plants, a very natural thing for us to do, into something that is expensive and controlled. Of course on that I am no expert so feel free to shoot some holes through my logic :) EDIT: ALSO I just realized: my thoughts in this paragraph are more about "well it's the principal of the thing", of people being ABLE to grow the food they would LIKE to grow and eat, rather than the science behind any of it.

The other thing is, some of the genetic modification is to make it so plants like corn and things can resist herbicides like Roundup. The thing is, our BODIES aren't Roundup resistant. Also, BUGS aren't Roundup resistant. We need pollinating insects to even grow food in the first place and we don't know how herbicides like roundup are affecting bugs, but we DO know that bumblebees are in trouble. :(

Kind of not relevant but HONESTLY there are some foods where the organic, fresh, untampered varieties genuinely just TASTE better. Like tomatoes!! Anyone else think supermarket GIANT pale pink watery tomatoes are just disgusting?!?! Eugh shudder. I don't know why that is?? Is it GMOs or the way they're grown or being picked too soon? It does seem like the bigger they are, the less flavor they have. Oh my gosh, love our tomatoes grown at home!! Packed full of flavor. So delicious. Strawberries too :)

Amtram
05-25-15, 08:17 PM
Every time I saw a claim that incited concern about GMOs, I investigated the science that was done both by the industry and by other scientists. I learned about the process and the testing and the amount of time that passes between the successful introduction of a genetic modification into a plant or an animal and its introduction (or non-introduction) into the market.

Not scared.

All crops that are modified with a gene from another crop that is a potential allergen are tested to make sure that the gene does not trigger the same allergic reaction as the crop from which it originated. If it does, the research stops and the modified crop is never introduced to the market.

Crops that are modified with an insecticide or herbicide are also thoroughly tested and usually use less of the insecticide or herbicide than non-modified crops, because it's in the plant rather than sprayed repeatedly in larger quantities than it is on a conventional or organic crop.

Several of the most demonized modifications involve substances that are used in organic crops (*cough, cough* bacillus Thuringiensis. . .) but have significantly less toxicity because they contain only the genes that affect the specific enzymes that are interrupted by the substance. They also affect only the pests that are eating the crop rather than any other pest that happens to be in the area or living in the soil or the water in the spray area.

Organic crops, despite the hype, are more often the source of bacterial illnesses like e. coli and giardia because they are grown in soil modified with manure and not sprayed with bacteriocidal chemicals. In addition, they often use pesticides and sometimes herbicides that are far more toxic than those that are chemically formulated to target only crop-specific threats. If you took the surfactants out of glyphosate, you could drink three gallons before getting sick (and some of that from drinking three gallons of anything in a single sitting) but a few ounces of pyrethrin could send you to the emergency room. And don't get me started about eating manure. . .

It takes, on average, 8-10 years between a genetic modification being proposed and it getting to market. *if* it gets to market. I have no delusions that any agrotech business is completely altruistic, but they have far more burden of proof and many more hoops to jump through than the organic market behind the GMO labeling campaigns. If Big Organic were required the level of transparency they claim to want for honest labeling, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

You see, genetic modification isn't an ingredient, and if every food producer were required to label not only ingredients but sources of ingredients, genetic history of ingredients, scientific evidence of the development of the ingredients. . .plus add in the cost of separating the actual ingredients based on those criteria, we'd all be starving. Not only would food prices go through the roof, but most farmers would go out of business, making food incredibly scarce. And when you went to the store and found the amount of bacteria, fungi, and viruses labeled on the non-GMO foods, you'd be hard pressed to decide between risking your health and starving. For no good reason.

Abi
05-25-15, 08:19 PM
*poke to see if she's real*

Amtram
05-25-15, 08:25 PM
Oh, and don't forget that you'd also have to abandon a lot of life-saving medical treatments in order to completely avoid GMOs.

You couldn't eat cheese but not meat, because cheese would either be made with genetically modified enzymes or from the stomach lining of veal calves.

You'd be completely out of luck if you had diabetes, because insulin is made from genetically modified chemicals (again, rather than from dead cows. . .)

Same with thyroid medications. Dead animal tissue or genetically modified bacteria that produce the hormones.

Lactose intolerant? The enzymes that remove the lactose so you can have dairy are GMO.

Soy is the most prominent genetically modified crop, so going vegan by switching to soy products means eating GMOs. You will also have to give up bananas and papayas and look carefully for citrus fruits, because all of them have been saved from extinction by genetically modifying them to protect them from the bacteria, fungi, and viruses that were killing them.

You can't really look at this in absolutes, and you can't fully trust the alarmist claims of the astroturfing organizations that want you to be scared of GMOs. It's not a simple either/or proposition.

Drewbacca
05-25-15, 11:29 PM
Ha! Just couldn't resist, could you Amtram?

Amtram
05-26-15, 01:09 PM
It's all your fault. You knew I couldn't. :lol:

rickymooston
05-26-15, 07:09 PM
I had no idea where to put this so move if
What do you guys think?

I think it's mostly b.s. but I have some concerns
1) I am disturbed by some recent patent practices
2) I still think they should be labeled
3) I think new GMO products need to be tested and approved by government
Potholer54 has a great video on the science.

Stevuke79
05-26-15, 10:01 PM
I don't know much about the healthiness of GMO foods, but they are definitely different in many ways.

I'm not suggesting that if there is a health difference, that non-GMO is healthier. I would have no idea. But their different, .. so why not differences in healthiness?

I remember when I started eating (don't anymore) non-GMO produce from a local organic farm and it was interesting. I always assumed that the actual differences were hype but first of all it LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT. (the GMO stuff looks better and healthier). And then you eat it.. and OMG .. it TASTES SO VERY DIFFERENT. Non-GMO tastes WAY better.. no comparison. I remember what I said to my wife, "I can't believe I never knew what a potato ACTUALLY tastes like!!" But the non GMO potatoes are small and weird looking things.. but they have so much more flavor.

I'm not saying they're healthier. And GMO's are a wonderful thing. At the rate the population is growing, one big reason that we can efficiently produce enough of these healthy foods is because of GMO's. They may not taste as good,.. but unless you are one of the folks who would pay a premium for organic or non-GMO, the alternative is not non-GMO produce.. the alternative is much less produce, PERIOD.

(doesn't mean Monsanto doesn't do a lot of evil things.. they do. But the evil is in Monsanto.. not GMO's.)

Stevuke79
05-26-15, 10:05 PM
Soy is the most prominent genetically modified crop, so going vegan by switching to soy products means eating GMOs.

and have you SEEN non-GMO soy beans.. those guys are UUUUGLY!!! Blech! And it's not just that their really REALLY hairy.. they'd be ugly even if they got a full body wax job.

But they taste better! Can I get past the appearance and pop them in my mouth? Only sometimes! :rolleyes:

Drewbacca
05-27-15, 02:10 AM
(doesn't mean Monsanto doesn't do a lot of evil things.. they do. But the evil is in Monsanto.. not GMO's.)

For example?



I remember when I started eating (don't anymore) non-GMO produce from a local organic farm and it was interesting. I always assumed that the actual differences were hype but first of all it LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT. (the GMO stuff looks better and healthier). And then you eat it.. and OMG .. it TASTES SO VERY DIFFERENT. Non-GMO tastes WAY better.. no comparison.

There are psychology studies that go in this sort of thing, specifically. There are also plenty of studies that discuss placebos in general. I saw one not too long ago regarding a blind taste test of wines at different price points and how much the knowledge that you are buying a "superior" and more expensive product influences what you actually end up tasting.

No need to get all academic though, ask an impartial friend to set up a blind taste test with several different types of fruit/vegetable and see how well you do. Penn and Teller have an episode where they did something along those lines.

It's silly to say that organic is better, but it's also silly to say that conventional is better... for one, organic produce still uses pesticide, it just happens to be organic pesticide rather than synthetic; sometimes that is the only difference, do you really thing that affects taste? Nevermind all of the other factors! Soil, sunlight, rain, arid, etc. Wine snobs will track down a specific year vintage because it tastes better, because no two seasons are exactly alike and the produce (in this case a grape) has slightly different characteristics from one year to another. The same crop grown on two different sides of the same hill may have two drastically different tastes just due to variations in sunlight, wind, and drainage. So, organic vs conventional in regards to taste is a false dichotomy. I'm sure there is organic that tastes better in some cases and I'm sure there is conventional that sometimes tastes better. Best to not have any preconceived notions that one is better than another (branding does this) and just buy whatever tastes best to you at the market.

Drewbacca
05-27-15, 02:26 AM
My opinion on GMO. It's a tool. It can be used in good ways and bad ways. Care must be taken to protect ecosystems from unintended consequences (starve the pest, and you upset the balance and possibly start a chain reaction). I worry more about that than any personal health issues in regards to what is currently on the market.

I will also say this, most of the negative info out there regarding GMOs is BS and doesn't hold up to fact checking. Somethings are just inconclusive but reported as definitive because it generates online add revenue. As with ADHD, there is a lot of bad reporting on the internet for biotech. Colony collapse of bees falls under the later, in that there is no known single cause but many different factors that are suspected to be contributing.

Drewbacca
05-27-15, 02:46 AM
The cat's out of the bag at that point; these genes, once introduced into an organism, could then propagate via the "natural" channels: if you're a farmer, and your field is across the road from a field with GMOs, your crop could potentially be cross-pollinated with the crop from the other field, and the seeds your crop produces could contain transgenes, whether or not you want them to.

There are also some social/economic/legal issues with intellectual property rights (http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/03/30/us-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gmo-patents-demand-right-to-conventional-crops/print/); for example, contractual agreements prohibit seed collection/propagation by farmers who plant certain types of commercially-patented GMO crops, and there are issues with farmers whose fields become contaminated with seeds from other fields.


Cross contamination isn't really an issue. For one, farmers don't tend to save seeds, they buy new ones every year. The reason for this is simple and sensible, just look at Mendelian inheritance of traditional breeding. If you save seeds, you get all of the possible hybrid variations. If only one out of four variations is desirable, the rest of what you plant ends up being a waste of resources. So, they buy seeds that all produce the same hybrid variety as opposed to any possible combination that would occur naturally. This is the case even if you take GMOs out of the picture all together.

You don't tend to have, for example, a field of wild corn near by that could be cross contaminated. We plant, we harvest. There are no stragglers. I'm sure there are cases in which this may be a concern, but I don't think it applies to any of the GMO products currently on the market. Perhaps it could be an issue with Arctic apples which just came to market, but it definitely wouldn't for soy, corn, or potatoes.

There are regulations that require buffer fields to be planted to prevent contamination from one farm to another. None the less, that doesn't guarantee it won't happen once in a while (it's just not a major concern). It's also possible that some of the produce will get mixed up along its way from field to store shelf. In fact, it's common for organic produce to have trace amounts of synthetic pesticide by the time it reaches the grocery store, just due to (relatively) careless transport. The organic label itself is kind of a joke though, unless you know the farm it came from first hand. It's just marketing in many cases. The label that already exists really doesn't tell you enough about how the product was grown. Organic isn't well defined.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5068682

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135239/

I'm not going to comment on labeling beyond that, as I think that is a different discussion entirely and sort of detracts from this one. Not to mention, it takes us dangerously close to a political discussion.

As for the intellectual property issue, the link you provided is about a court case that didn't go anywhere. If the case was dropped, it doesn't make for good evidence that there is an issue. I'm not saying that there isn't the potential for a conflict (and I believe that is all that you are saying). I'm just being clear that no example of this currently exists to my knowledge. You can always find a reason to sue, that doesn't mean you'll win in court.

Drewbacca
05-27-15, 02:58 AM
As with ADHD, there is a lot of bad reporting on the internet for biotech. Colony collapse of bees falls under the later, in that there is no known single cause but many different factors that are suspected to be contributing.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/plant-nursery-health/docs/2014-Krischik-pollinator-conservation.pdf
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43900.pdf
http://ento.psu.edu/publications/are-neonicotinoids-killing-bees
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/FS122E/FS122E.pdf

Stevuke79
05-27-15, 07:42 AM
Monsanto has prosecuted farmers for not paying a "technology fee" or "royalty fee" for the unwanted and unintentional cross pollination with their GMO product.

That's the only thing that I can say without mentioning politics, which are against forum rules.

BTW - that Monsanto does evil things was the last thing I said and a side point. I think it was even in parentheses. My main point, whatever evil they do, it's their GMO's that makes giving produce to our massive world population POSSIBLE. I could even understand how, in that position, you would by overly aggressive in defending your patents, suing farmers, and securing ties with gov't.

Nothing is all good or all bad. And I don't think my post implied so.

I'm a little baffled that you read my post and are responding as if I'm attacking monsanto or GMO's. I think I'm closer to defending them, or at least very even handed.

GMO -pretty
non-GMO -yummy

Both subjective of course. You might find tiny brown hairy soy beans prettier.

There are psychology studies that go in this sort of thing, specifically. There are also plenty of studies that discuss placebos in general. I saw one not too long ago regarding a blind taste test of wines at different price points and how much the knowledge that you are buying a "superior" and more expensive product influences what you actually end up tasting.

No need to get all academic though, ask an impartial friend to set up a blind taste test with several different types of fruit/vegetable and see how well you do. Penn and Teller have an episode where they did something along those lines.

It's silly to say that organic is better, but it's also silly to say that conventional is better... for one, organic produce still uses pesticide, it just happens to be organic pesticide rather than synthetic; sometimes that is the only difference, do you really thing that affects taste? Nevermind all of the other factors! Soil, sunlight, rain, arid, etc. Wine snobs will track down a specific year vintage because it tastes better, because no two seasons are exactly alike and the produce (in this case a grape) has slightly different characteristics from one year to another. The same crop grown on two different sides of the same hill may have two drastically different tastes just due to variations in sunlight, wind, and drainage. So, organic vs conventional in regards to taste is a false dichotomy. I'm sure there is organic that tastes better in some cases and I'm sure there is conventional that sometimes tastes better. Best to not have any preconceived notions that one is better than another (branding does this) and just buy whatever tastes best to you at the market.

I didn't say organic was better. I said it was different.

They are different. The difference is objective. Use your eyes - even a machine could see the difference. No placebo affect.

Like soy beans:
GMO - bright green, big, juicy and only the smallest slightest little fuzz.. but all beautifully big and green.

non-GMO - tiny, brown, hairy as heck.


They're just different. Anyone could see that.

I also said that organic tastes better and looks uglier - that's subjective and vulnerable to the placebo affect. But the visual differences are quite objective and even a machine could identify them correctly every time.

rickymooston
05-27-15, 08:11 AM
]
I'm not suggesting that if there is a health difference, that non-GMO is healthier. I would have no idea. But their different, .. so why not differences in healthiness?


If you buy a potato in the store, to my understanding it is not GMO.

It could be different in healthiness as can any non-GMO strain. But a difference could be positive or negative.

Stevuke79
05-27-15, 10:00 AM
If you buy a potato in the store, to my understanding it is not GMO.

It could be different in healthiness as can any non-GMO strain. But a difference could be positive or negative.

To clarify, I didn't say they were healthier. I said they were different (empirically in ways we can all see) and regarding "healthier" I specified that if one were healthier, it may very well be the GMO, and I have no idea.

If store bought potatoes are non-GMO, I take your word for it. I mentioned them because they were simply the instance where i made that particular remark which related to my point. Why those potatoes were different.. maybe it was the sheer righteousness of doing a farm share radiating down upon my meal.

(btw,Monsanto, and I don't think I'm so hard on them to begin with, is one of the rare times I don't 100% defend the corporation.)

Unmanagable
05-27-15, 11:39 AM
Regardless of all the scientific data collected, I am simply sharing that I am currently living the experience of greatly improved health and function through purposely avoiding what I know to be GMO products and making it a point to eat organic foods, most of which are grown in my yard or the yard of someone I know, which helps to make it affordable and attainable. That's not the only thing I'm doing that has brought about major personal improvements, but I've learned it's indeed the foundation that can trip me up and take me down again if I stray from it. It's been proven healthier for me and my needs.....your mileage may vary.

sarek
05-28-15, 06:40 PM
Mod note:

This thread is now reopened but I would like to caution everyone to steer clear of political content.

willow129
05-28-15, 11:11 PM
Drewbacca - .... as far as organic verses conventional (I guess you mean GMO stuff) there ISN'T a comparison in tastes. It's not about placebos. Go to a Starr Market and get a tomato, and go to your local farm stand and get a tomato. The Starr Market tomato is big, you cut it in half, it is pink not red on the inside, it is watery and disgusting. The farm stand tomato is red on the inside and delicious. Comparing it to wine does not make sense to me...the wine variations you are talking about ARE vague and subjective. This isn't a minor variation. They are very noticeably different.

And honestly I gotta say, I have NO DOUBT that the tastier red tomato is more nutritious. The color and the taste come from all the nutrients it's absorbed from the ground. The thing with organic stuff, and the reason they taste better, is the SOIL is better quality. They're not putting on all the pesticides and stuff which actually kill things in the soil that are beneficial to plants. The problem, as I've said in an earlier post, with GMOs is that they make the plants pesticide resistant, which means they're dumping more of that stuff onto the plants and into the soil.

Again, I also said this earlier, but something we need to be considering is that humans are not resistant to these pesticides, and neither are insects. And we really need bugs on this planet.

willow129
05-28-15, 11:25 PM
Organic crops, despite the hype, are more often the source of bacterial illnesses like e. coli and giardia because they are grown in soil modified with manure and not sprayed with bacteriocidal chemicals. In addition, they often use pesticides and sometimes herbicides that are far more toxic than those that are chemically formulated to target only crop-specific threats.

....

If they are using pesticides and herbicides, then they are not organic. I don't understand this.

namazu
05-29-15, 12:33 AM
Many farm stands sell tomatoes that are not "organic" (according to USDA standards), but those tomatoes will still usually taste better than supermarket tomatoes -- simply because they're fresher, and they may be varieties that are bred (with or without direct genetic engineering) for taste rather than for uniform appearance and shelf life.

Also, farmers can use some pesticides in organic farming (derived from natural sources), just not most synthetic pesticides.

In general, synthetic substances are prohibited unless specifically allowed and non-synthetic substances are allowed unless specifically prohibited.

This page (https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html) is out-of-date, but cogently discusses organic vs. synthetic pesticide use and some misconceptions people have about pesticides.

Here's a summary of USDA organic standards. (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicStandards)

KarmanMonkey
05-29-15, 10:48 AM
My underlying concern is similar in GMO's as it is with pharmacutical companies and our changing technology in general; that there are a vast number of conflicting interests.

Often organizations developing products have tunnel vision. "We need to make more resilient crops" "People demand more convenient communication" "We need to answer to our stockholders" Often one concern/goal/issue becomes the sole interest of the organization, and they don't consider the broader ramifications of their choices.

If I make a more resilient crop, am I going to have a bigger environmental impact? Am I going to undermine the taste/nutrition/longevity of the crop? Are the modifications I'm making going to create new unforseen health problems in the people who grow or eat my crop? If a problem does arise, can we undo the changes that are made?

A lot of the "ancient grains" are gaining popularity because they have better nutrition and taste than the mainstays of wheat and corn that have been bred for resilience and productivity (either through low or high tech means). Now they're making modifications to these ancient grains to meet our demand, which will likely eliminate the benefits that drew people to those crops in the first place.

We also often look at the health and economic impact of our developments, but only rarely examine or respond to the social implications. For example, the proliferation of cell phones is now being attributed to a rising epidemic of anxiety and panic among youth. At the same time we can't exactly tell tech companies they have to stop developing cell phone technology, because I'm pretty sure that would demolish the economy of several countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that people, for the most part, are relatively short sighted people with a narrow focus. To survive in life we kind of have to be! But as a result we often don't see the full consequenses of our choices until we're more or less powerless to change them.

Amtram
05-31-15, 12:07 PM
....

If they are using pesticides and herbicides, then they are not organic. I don't understand this.

Yes, they are. They are just using pesticides and herbicides that have been derived from plant or animal sources rather than being synthesized. Bacillus Thuringiensis is an organic pesticide, as is Pyrethrin. You may be able to go out in your backyard garden and pick off insects or pull up weeds, but that's simply not possible on a large scale. Organic farmers would not be able to produce crops without controlling the things that prey on the plants.

I used to buy all my weed control, insect control, and pest deterrents from organic gardening catalogues.

Amtram
05-31-15, 12:14 PM
I thought this might be helpful for understanding that there are many different types of genetically modified organisms, which is why an umbrella term that covers all of them is unlikely to be informative or helpful.

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/screen-shot-2013-07-15-at-1-33-08-pm.png

SB_UK
06-01-15, 07:39 AM
Echoing points above re: patenting seeds - driving other seeds out of the market - Indian farmer suicides ... ... a useful question to ask might be - would we still be interested in producing GMOs if NOBODY stood to financially, personally gain from them ?
Or is it simply an exercise in labelling a seed unequivocally with a genomic change which modern tech allows us to identify in situ in a field in seconds ... ...

It's interesting to extend that question ie would human beings be interested in {insert anything that people do for money here} if NOBODY stood to individually financially, personally gain from them ?

I'm not entirely sure that much anything that people currently do for money - ie that people consider so important to society / personally rewarding that they'd continue to perform these tasks without expectation of personal payment.

And that those tasks which would be retained - we'd find highly represented as hobbies eg organic gardening, carpentry, programming ... ...

Genetic modification of crops using genetic engineering - relatively easy to do - almost impossible to comprehend the consequences to plant physiology - best left to traditional breeding techniques - not to be entertained until we have a solid idea of what each and every base in the genome does at each stage of development.

Which won't happen in the near future.

Would anybody debug a computer program by deleting / adding random lines of code into a program ?
Has to be more targeted.

Really uneasy about the idea of changing genomes by methods which can't be accomplished naturally.
Not that it's unsafe - just because it isn't intelligent to fiddle with things we don't entirely grasp.

BellaVita
06-01-15, 08:24 AM
And honestly I gotta say, I have NO DOUBT that the tastier red tomato is more nutritious. The color and the taste come from all the nutrients it's absorbed from the ground. The thing with organic stuff, and the reason they taste better, is the SOIL is better quality. They're not putting on all the pesticides and stuff which actually kill things in the soil that are beneficial to plants. The problem, as I've said in an earlier post, with GMOs is that they make the plants pesticide resistant, which means they're dumping more of that stuff onto the plants and into the soil.

Again, I also said this earlier, but something we need to be considering is that humans are not resistant to these pesticides, and neither are insects. And we really need bugs on this planet.

Actually, organic is not more nutritious than non-organic.

And regarding pesticides, people are not more likely to get sick by eating non-organic than organic.

(About the bugs thing - we also need people too. Not everyone can go organic, nor should they. GMOs allow for more people to survive.)

Here is a video that explains these things well, includes studies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl5GXArC134

daveddd
06-01-15, 08:46 AM
Just pulled into chipotle. The first gmo free place. Big one at least

Well i got to get out to spray herbicide on there lawn. Ironic huh

Little Missy
06-01-15, 09:10 AM
Just pulled into chipotle. The first gmo free place. Big one at least

Well i got to get out to spray herbicide on there lawn. Ironic huh

:lol: That is great!!

Unmanagable
06-01-15, 10:09 AM
Actually, organic is not more nutritious than non-organic.

And regarding pesticides, people are not more likely to get sick by eating non-organic than organic.

(About the bugs thing - we also need people too. Not everyone can go organic, nor should they. GMOs allow for more people to survive.)

Here is a video that explains these things well, includes studies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl5GXArC134

I think peeps often forget that not everyone is the same, and some people are extremely sensitive to these chemicals and "modifications" to the way things are supposed to be, naturally, just as many of us are more sensitive to emotions, etc. Our bodies are a hell of a lot smarter than our brains and all these scientists allow us to think they are. Allowing people to survive is great, and I'd eat a GMO anything if I were hungry enough, but at what significant cost will we finally wake up and realize how incredibly damaging it's been in the long run?

Unmanagable
06-01-15, 10:13 AM
Just pulled into chipotle. The first gmo free place. Big one at least

Well i got to get out to spray herbicide on there lawn. Ironic huh

Just curious......do you mark the area after you spray before peeps let their kids and animals on it, or is it just a spray and go operation? There's a lot of concerns being brought up about spraying done near playgrounds, parks, etc. without any advance notice or instruction how to stay safe around it. If I remember correctly, it was done after some kids got sick from playing in a freshly sprayed area.

daveddd
06-01-15, 10:44 AM
Dated signs

School are arranged weeks in advance when school is out and several signs are left

SB_UK
06-01-15, 02:49 PM
Anybody like permaculture ?

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/17/inhabit-permaculture-perspective/

Better than organic.
No real human effort required.

2.40
'agriculture is not enrichment of soil but depletion - closer to mining'

2.47
'every culture that has based its food production in annual crops has collapsed'

Basic message ? Not standard farming practices regardless of seed origin.

-*-

Standard response GMO vs nonGMO?
Neither.

Skyf@ll
06-01-15, 10:38 PM
I read an article there saying McD's refuse to buy GMO potatoes for their fries.

What the hell kind of potatoes are using then?

If you have ever watched supersize me- he puts them in a jar for like weeks and weeks and they refuse to decompose.

I bet if it came to an all-out nuclear war all there would be left is cockroaches and McD's fries

KarmanMonkey
06-02-15, 03:56 PM
I'm not a big fan of black and white statements... GMO's aren't inherantly good or bad; the problems arise when we do not take a balanced approach.

Give GMO crops to a culture that has an unstable climate with a population that's doesn't know modern farming techniques and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Anything done blindly or in faith that it is only good or bad often will end badly. There is virtually nothing in this world that doesn't have benefits or costs. It's a matter of being aware of those benefits and costs.

Is all natural better? That depends on what "all natural" ingredients you use. For example, a lot of "natural" colour is derived from insects. And let's not even speak of "natural raspberry flavour": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum

I mean, neither of those examples are harmful, really, but neither screams "better than chemicals" to me.

And again I've gone rather far off topic. Hopefully people can see what I'm trying to get at.

Little Missy
06-02-15, 07:51 PM
I have always wondered the chemical make-up of fake banana flavour.

sarahsweets
06-05-15, 12:09 PM
Remember when starbucks was using like red beetles for their strawberry frappachinos?

Unmanagable
06-05-15, 12:36 PM
That's where my rule of not eating or drinking anything served to me through my car window comes in handy. :)

Little Missy
06-05-15, 01:07 PM
Remember when starbucks was using like red beetles for their strawberry frappachinos?

ooooo, those pretty little "strawberry" flecks :lol:

Fuzzy12
06-05-15, 01:09 PM
Remember when starbucks was using like red beetles for their strawberry frappachinos?

:eek::faint:

Abi
06-05-15, 05:12 PM
Whats wrong with red beetles? They are creatures that exist in nature, as opposed to evil synthetically produced colourants. Yum, protein. :)

Lunacie
06-08-15, 06:06 PM
Sorry, I don't know how to make the image smaller, but want to share.


https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11422040_991909037515750_1745009813566782711_n.jpg ?oh=3ae7cf1d8e3c9d0a6e17c1c47d9cd794&oe=55FD8A5E

Stevuke79
06-09-15, 12:37 AM
Sorry, I don't know how to make the image smaller, but want to share.


https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11422040_991909037515750_1745009813566782711_n.jpg ?oh=3ae7cf1d8e3c9d0a6e17c1c47d9cd794&oe=55FD8A5E
This is a scary one.

For those who aren't familiar, dhm is the primary component of acid rain. .. among other things. And there is still zero research being done to better understand the risks of DHM even though it is the most abundant chemical on the planet. .. and due to global warming it's levels are rising even further! !

And no one says anything about it. This is despite the fact that we know with certainty that excessive quantities of dhm cause respiratory problems and can be fatal and has been fatal in many documented cases. These cases are in addition to the countless deaths from natural disasters that were made exponentially more lethal do to the involvement of dhm!!

Its not just sprayed on produce. . Its also the single most common additive in nearly everything we eat. The gov't generally takes the position that DHM I harmless,.. except when it comes to astronauts. . for some reason they remove all DHM from the food rations given to astronauts in space. Hmmmm.. i suppose its safe enough unless a health problem might risk your life AND millions of dollars worth of equipment. .. once money is on the line then its better safe than sorry.

All this.. yet we hear nothing about it.

namazu
06-09-15, 12:59 AM
This is a scary one.

And there is still zero research being done to better understand the risks of DHM.

[...]

Its also the single most abundant chemical on the planet... yet no one says anything. ..

Not to mention that body burden studies have detected its presence in newborn infants and young children in both developing and industrialized countries, including a full 100% of infants born in Trenton, NJ last year. It's even found its way into -- and is actually present at high levels in -- the bodies of Inuit villagers in remote parts of Nunavut, the nomadic peoples of the Sahara, and the Yanomami of the Amazon rainforest.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Qamutik_1_1999-04-01.jpg/230px-Qamutik_1_1999-04-01.jpghttp://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.TNHAQX8JL/LniabJlaUh6Q&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Yanomami_Woman_%26_Child.jpg/225px-Yanomami_Woman_%26_Child.jpg

It's thought that these groups are exposed primarily through the foods they eat and the water they drink (or the food and water consumed by their mothers while pregnant), which is contaminated with DHM.

Talk about alarming! :eek:

Stevuke79
06-09-15, 05:12 AM
Not to mention that body burden studies have detected its presence in newborn infants and young children in both developing and industrialized countries, including a full 100% of infants born in Trenton, NJ last year. It's even found its way into -- and is actually present at high levels in -- the bodies of Inuit villagers in remote parts of Nunavut, the nomadic peoples of the Sahara, and the Yanomami of the Amazon rainforest.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Qamutik_1_1999-04-01.jpg/230px-Qamutik_1_1999-04-01.jpghttp://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.TNHAQX8JL/LniabJlaUh6Q&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Yanomami_Woman_%26_Child.jpg/225px-Yanomami_Woman_%26_Child.jpg

It's thought that these groups are exposed primarily through the foods they eat and the water they drink (or the food and water consumed by their mothers while pregnant), which is contaminated with DHM.

Talk about alarming! :eek:

It breaks the heart.. :(:(:(:(:(

Lunacie
06-09-15, 11:17 AM
This is a scary one.

For those who aren't familiar, dhm is the primary component of acid rain. .. among other things. And there is still zero research being done to better understand the risks of DHM even though it is the most abundant chemical on the planet. .. and due to global warming it's levels are rising even further! !

And no one says anything about it. This is despite the fact that we know with certainty that excessive quantities of dhm cause respiratory problems and can be fatal and has been fatal in many documented cases. These cases are in addition to the countless deaths from natural disasters that were made exponentially more lethal do to the involvement of dhm!!

Its not just sprayed on produce. . Its also the single most common additive in nearly everything we eat. The gov't generally takes the position that DHM I harmless,.. except when it comes to astronauts. . for some reason they remove all DHM from the food rations given to astronauts in space. Hmmmm.. i suppose its safe enough unless a health problem might risk your life AND millions of dollars worth of equipment. .. once money is on the line then its better safe than sorry.

All this.. yet we hear nothing about it.

Lets everyone in on the joke now ...

DHM (dihydrogen monoxide) is water. Nothing but water. Nothing scary.

Unless like California you don't have enough. Or like Texas you have too much.

http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

Amtram
06-25-15, 03:03 PM
You know it's also used in rocket fuel, right? Should you be drinking something that's used to make rocket fuel?!?

Fuzzy12
06-26-15, 03:10 PM
This is a scary one.

For those who aren't familiar, dhm is the primary component of acid rain. .. among other things. And there is still zero research being done to better understand the risks of DHM even though it is the most abundant chemical on the planet. .. and due to global warming it's levels are rising even further! !

And no one says anything about it. This is despite the fact that we know with certainty that excessive quantities of dhm cause respiratory problems and can be fatal and has been fatal in many documented cases. These cases are in addition to the countless deaths from natural disasters that were made exponentially more lethal do to the involvement of dhm!!

Its not just sprayed on produce. . Its also the single most common additive in nearly everything we eat. The gov't generally takes the position that DHM I harmless,.. except when it comes to astronauts. . for some reason they remove all DHM from the food rations given to astronauts in space. Hmmmm.. i suppose its safe enough unless a health problem might risk your life AND millions of dollars worth of equipment. .. once money is on the line then its better safe than sorry.

All this.. yet we hear nothing about it.

:lol::goodpost: