patrick.net

BTW, a LOT of fish is mislabeled so as to artificially increase it's value. Also, as far as I can tell, the quality of seafood has decreased so much over the past 30 years as to make most of it inedible. Now that they are scraping the bottom of the oceans the taste is really terrible and I won't eat seafood any more and haven't eaten much in decades (shrimp and canned tuna seems to still taste OK, but everything else sucks).

just_passing_through says

That technology will be used by our future cyborg leaders. They'll be able to sniff out our location anywhere on the planet by sampling the wind, water etc., in real time and zero in on us with their global intelligence. None of us will be able to hide outside of the people-zoo.

Not so tongue in cheek. A company I worked for makes a very crude version of exactly what you are describing.

New Renter says

I attended a few seminars on exactly that subject - sequencing the flora of the human gut to better understand the interaction of ourselves to our tenants. From what I saw I think this will be a real leap forward in our understanding of medicine.

I had a recent email exchange with a comical UCSF scientist I used to work with. When it's better understood one might form a company that delivers gut-flora pills in order to mimic the famous. He said, "Today I want to feel like Brad Pit, on the inside!"

New Renter says

Not so tongue in cheek. A company I worked for makes a very crude version of exactly what you are describing.

Interesting... The though of the possibility came to me recently while working on an app for human identification, FBI tech etc. Not surprising... Scary.

just_passing_through says

They'll be able to sniff out our location anywhere on the planet by sampling the wind, water etc., in real time and zero in on us with their global intelligence.

A feral cat that I used to feed could do that. Specifically this one:

zzyzzx says

A feral cat that I used to feed could do that

Could be one of those alien beings Dmitry Medvedev mentioned and discussed on another PatNet thread?

If not it's a cool looking cat.

New Renter says

Actually grafting does not "change the genetics" any more than a transplant heart changes the genetics of the recipient.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27377/title/Grafts-guide-gene-exchange/

When two plants are grafted together, they share much more than water and minerals: They also swap genetic material, according to a linkurl:study;http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/324/5927/649 published in tomorrow's (May 1) issue of __Science__. These findings muddy the distinction between naturally-occurring gene transfer in plants and the human-mediated mechanisms we generally refer to as genetic engineering.

Zlxr says

How do you know and why do you think this is better than just cross pollinating the corn and being able to save seeds for the next year instead of having to buy new seeds from Monsanto?????

How do you know it's worse?

Zlxr says

OK - just passing

Good questions. It depends on the legal contract I suppose. I'm not against patenting GMs for the time required to recoup (very expensive) business costs and to generate profits. Maybe a model similar to drugs where eventually they expire and generics become available.

However, your scenario suggests monoculture which is a bad idea. You'd want a certain amount of 'variable' plants also growing in any region in order to confront the unexpected. I'm pretty sure that is how it's done.

GM's and patenting and monoculture is exactly what Monsanto is doing? This is what you are sticking up for.

Zlxr says

Then you should know that if they would sequence the genomes for the weeds and the pests - they would know how to eradicate them without chemicals and having to alter the plants they are trying to grow.

No. They'd be able to use either or both better. Like designer drugs in medicine which are also on the horizon.

Zlxr says

GM's and patenting and monoculture is exactly what Monsanto is doing? This is what you are sticking up for.

I think they plant something like 10% regular hybrids within a mono-culture field or some such to get the best of both.

I'm sticking up for GM and what it isn't despite the frankenfood nuts claims otherwise. Yes, I also support patents you're damn straight.

Homeboy says

New Renter says

Actually grafting does not "change the genetics" any more than a transplant heart changes the genetics of the recipient.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27377/title/Grafts-guide-gene-exchange/

When two plants are grafted together, they share much more than water and minerals: They also swap genetic material, according to a linkurl:study;http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/324/5927/649 published in tomorrow's (May 1) issue of __Science__. These findings muddy the distinction between naturally-occurring gene transfer in plants and the human-mediated mechanisms we generally refer to as genetic engineering.

Interesting stuff. Makes one wonder about that heart transplant.

Homeboy says

When a farmer grafts 2 trees together, he is changing the genetics of that product.

I think what you fail to understand is that what we are calling GMO is an organism that could not in any way develop "naturally" that is under natural circumstances. Much of the so called genetic manipulation prior to the relatively recent labortory insertion of genetic material from other species has been by selection and controlled selection. These varieties could theoretically occour in nature, by accident, it is just that they have been selected in situations where man has controlled their genetic makeup through selective breeding. There are people that object to the process of hybridization, there are people that will object to anything. The big natural food movement is a bit less organic now and more directed toward heirloom varieties

The actual process of gene insertion in a true GMO used to (not sure of latest technology) involve actually shooting (with a gun like tool) the material gene(s) into the plant. Thus we get BT corn which has a bacillus genetically inserted that provides built in protection against certain insects. BTW this has dramatically lessened the amount of insecticide applied to the corn crop. There are other ways of controlling those insects without pesticides or BT corn but they involve crop rotation which many farmers do not want to be locked into. The difference in the old technology and new is that it is simply not possible for these GMO's to develop in nature and thus we are involved in a gigantic experiment covering vast areas of the earth with plants (maybe fish now) that have been created in a lab.

Using the original example of grafting it is possible when it was first noticed or attempted that people might have objected to that practice also. Since grafting has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years it has proven to be a benign practice, let us hope that laboratory genetic modification proves likewise as benign. In the mean time label label label.

donjumpsuit says

Wheat. The basis of all breads, pizza's, pastas, cakes, and cookies. The prime evil of our health and waist lines in today's society is a purely GENETICALLY ENGINEERED crop.

But this misses the point of why there is concern with GMO's. As I said in previous post crop selection has been going on for thousands of years controlled hybridization on a high level probably for 80 to 100 years. The laboratory insertion of genes from divergent species into crop plants is relatively recent and could in no way occur n nature. Wheat may not have existed in nature but it is certainly possible for it to have arisen naturally. Same with corn. People have "genetically selected" not "genetically engineered" these crops into existence over thousands of years. Therein is the difference and "possible" reason for concern

donjumpsuit says

70% of the corn and soy in this country are GMO, separating them at this point isn't an option,

I actually think the percentage may be higher but I disagree that it is not possible to separate the two. It is not only possible but is happening. I am involved in farming (indirectly) and used to farm. There was an .80 premium per bushel being paid for non gmo soybeans (last fall), so there is a demand for conventionally grown non gmo crops

donjumpsuit says

but don't blame GMO's. We know exactly what we are doing with GMO's, it couldn't be more straight forward.

This type of scientific hubris doesn't sit very well with me. I am not opposed to GMO's but to think you know all the answers and ramifications of their introduction is just... irrational.

Your scientists cling to a tree's, it's why they are paid by institutions

They are not here to provide you with health related information.

They are not here to care about your health. They are here to make money for their masters.

People are getting sicker and sicker from eating food. WHY!

Diabetes, Allergies, Wheat Allergies and worse, to suggest there is no health issues related to crops and GMO is pathetic.

Scientists are taking over from farmers , who do you trust?

over 90% Soy is GMO

There is way to much GMO CORN in the food CHAIN. Way to much CORN in the food chain used as feed for FISH!!! CORN IS Used for EVERYTHING!

When will you scientist admit that!

donjumpsuit says

If you think we aren't doing OK, then blame hamburgers, wireless communications, electronics, chemicals in everyday plastics and cosmetics, pharmaceuticals that we pee into our toilets and remain in our watersupply, but don't blame GMO's. We know exactly what we are doing with GMO's, it couldn't be more straight forward.

Don't mind the man behind the sheets.

Yes, typical, as long as you have a job you can blame everyone else.

Yes there are many toxins in our lives, stop putting them there!

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/pdbes-where-do-they-come-from-and-what-are-they-doing-to-us.html

PDBEs: Where Do They Come From And What Are They Doing To Us?

donjumpsuit says

As a scientist speaking. Nobody is trying to hide technology (GMO) from you.

Monsanto, Monsanto, Monsanto

donjumpsuit says

4. "Round-UP is Monsantos evil little Herbicide drug that is killing us and everything around us."

First of all, yes. Monsanto patented Round-UP, and "Round-Up ready crops". They do work in combination. Secondly, ROUND UP AND BT CORN are two separate technologies!

Speaking of Glyphosphate (RoundUp), this is one of the most safest herbicide on the market

B U L L S H I T!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294

Cancer of Corruption, Seeds of Destruction: The Monsanto GMO Whitewash

Their findings were more than alarming. The Seralini study concluded, “In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs…Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…”