4 ms·

Neil Young doesn't have a GMO podcast nor any kind of political show on Spotify, nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health.

by zzzeek 5y ago

Neil Young doesn't have a GMO podcast nor any kind of political show on Spotify, nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health. Your point is completely irrelevant.

ch4s3 5y ago
> nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health GMO panic is at the heart of a lot of COVID vaccine refusal, so I think it at least has a somewhat negative effect on public health.
- sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
  TBH I can't blame people for being weary of GMO in general after the decades of pumping people full or garbage hormones and whatever else it's a trust issue not a "science" one
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    GMO crops are exactly not "garbage hormones", and people consume them all of the time without complaint. I don't see anyone picketing the yogurt cases in their local super markets. Lot's of hormones survive intact through digestion and can enter the blood stream, but your body doesn't absorb the genetic material of food[1]. DNA is fragile and it's really hard to get foreign DNA into a cell, much less the nucleus. Our cells evolved a lot of specific defenses to prevent that. This is why DNA vaccines are so hard to develop and administer. Conflating things like rbST or rBGH in milk with novel genes in corn is nothing but scientific illiteracy. TL;DR it's really hard to get DNA into eukaryotic cells (yours) and you definitely can't do that with food. [1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170223102128.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170223102128.h...
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > Conflating things like rbST or rBGH in milk with novel genes in corn is nothing but scientific illiteracy. Yeah, so what? Nobody said anything else. It's still "a trust issue not a 'science' one", because most people are scientifically illiterate and probably always will be. To make a majority trust science (again [?]) in stead of distrusting it will have to be done by some other means than educating everyone into scientists.
    - sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
      you misunderstand
beerandt 5y ago
>nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health The complete lack of awareness of the hypocrisy is why it's relevant. If you took crop GMO, got rid of the one-time gene modification, but instead, started growing the unmodified plant... and then just directly injected those modified genes such that billions of cells began expressing/building proteins from the modified genes... ...you'd end up with almost exactly the mRNA vaccine technology. (Well, if it worked on plants.) But the 100% plant process that doesn’t rely on in-situ gene transfer or modification is dangerous to grow and eat, while the viral process that involves intentional gene transfer into human cells, and said cells manufacturing the very part of the virus that makes it so effective at cellular invasion...is unquestionably safe to inject? That's why opposition to GMO is relevant. It's completely contradictory and heretical to question the science of one while faithfully crusading for the other.
- zzzeek 5y ago
  here is why people don't like GMOs. it has nothing to do with the genetic modification. it is due to the rationale by which GMOs are used in the US, which are exactly: 1. to allow much greater use of herbicides 2. to allow much greater use of pesticides 3. to allow seeds to be patented and subject to license fees such that control of the food supply is handed over to multinational corporations. now you can get into debating that glyophosphate is just fine and you could just drink a whole jar of it no problem (yeah right) and all that, you could get into how it's just fine if there's no more seeds available to humanity that don't come with license fees, but that's what the actual debate is about.

by zzzeek 5y ago

Neil Young doesn't have a GMO podcast nor any kind of political show on Spotify, nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health. Your point is completely irrelevant.

ch4s3 5y ago

> nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health GMO panic is at the heart of a lot of COVID vaccine refusal, so I think it at least has a somewhat negative effect on public health.

sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
TBH I can't blame people for being weary of GMO in general after the decades of pumping people full or garbage hormones and whatever else it's a trust issue not a "science" one
- ch4s3 5y ago
  GMO crops are exactly not "garbage hormones", and people consume them all of the time without complaint. I don't see anyone picketing the yogurt cases in their local super markets. Lot's of hormones survive intact through digestion and can enter the blood stream, but your body doesn't absorb the genetic material of food[1]. DNA is fragile and it's really hard to get foreign DNA into a cell, much less the nucleus. Our cells evolved a lot of specific defenses to prevent that. This is why DNA vaccines are so hard to develop and administer. Conflating things like rbST or rBGH in milk with novel genes in corn is nothing but scientific illiteracy. TL;DR it's really hard to get DNA into eukaryotic cells (yours) and you definitely can't do that with food. [1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170223102128.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170223102128.h...
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Conflating things like rbST or rBGH in milk with novel genes in corn is nothing but scientific illiteracy. Yeah, so what? Nobody said anything else. It's still "a trust issue not a 'science' one", because most people are scientifically illiterate and probably always will be. To make a majority trust science (again [?]) in stead of distrusting it will have to be done by some other means than educating everyone into scientists.
  - sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
    you misunderstand

beerandt 5y ago

>nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health The complete lack of awareness of the hypocrisy is why it's relevant. If you took crop GMO, got rid of the one-time gene modification, but instead, started growing the unmodified plant... and then just directly injected those modified genes such that billions of cells began expressing/building proteins from the modified genes... ...you'd end up with almost exactly the mRNA vaccine technology. (Well, if it worked on plants.) But the 100% plant process that doesn’t rely on in-situ gene transfer or modification is dangerous to grow and eat, while the viral process that involves intentional gene transfer into human cells, and said cells manufacturing the very part of the virus that makes it so effective at cellular invasion...is unquestionably safe to inject? That's why opposition to GMO is relevant. It's completely contradictory and heretical to question the science of one while faithfully crusading for the other.

zzzeek 5y ago
here is why people don't like GMOs. it has nothing to do with the genetic modification. it is due to the rationale by which GMOs are used in the US, which are exactly: 1. to allow much greater use of herbicides 2. to allow much greater use of pesticides 3. to allow seeds to be patented and subject to license fees such that control of the food supply is handed over to multinational corporations. now you can get into debating that glyophosphate is just fine and you could just drink a whole jar of it no problem (yeah right) and all that, you could get into how it's just fine if there's no more seeds available to humanity that don't come with license fees, but that's what the actual debate is about.