Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eagleon]

Molecular nutrition and toxicology is actually fairly difficult, particularly when it comes to long-term/subtle effects.

And we're not just talking nutrition anyway. We're talking ecology, we're talking intellectual property rights, and we're talking the ethics of making strains of plants that are resistant to the type of herbicide you just happen to sell yourself.

See above. More work has been done on molecular toxicology due to genetic engineering being used, not the other way around. There will never be an end to it - we simply don't know everything about the regular food we eat to begin with, as evidenced by the thousands of studies and news articles on the effects (long term and otherwise) of consuming different plants in different quantities. I argue that, more likely than not, if a vegetable with a protein from a type of fish doesn't kill pigs, pass human trials with the same results, and can feed millions of people in poor-quality agricultural land, it's about as safe to put in Walmart as a kohlrabi or a star-fruit. I guarantee you people living with drought conditions aren't going to be worrying about any slightly increased risk of whatever if they can feed their families come winter.

It's definitely possible to misapply genetic engineering. I simply hate it when people say it should be banned without considering the enormous benefits, simply because of the unethical actions of one or two corporations. It runs parallel with the nuclear power scare. I don't want to see development in this area stunted to the degree that fission has been. I do want to see viability studies for cross-species pollination, use of crops in areas that do not have wild cousins in the immediate vicinity, introduced herbicide vulnerabilities for control, consideration for seed dispersal methods (i.e, let's not make fast-growing Antarctic-hardy varieties of thistle FFS), etc. etc.

[Phmcw]

I agree with you, but I want them banned from agriculture until these problem are solved, not the other way around : If we had done that for the nuclear, we wouldn't have all the opposition we have now (and actually I'm a bi concerned by the current loosening of the application of the security measure. The last thing we need is another major nuclear incident.)

[G-Flex]

It's definitely possible to misapply genetic engineering. I simply hate it when people say it should be banned without considering the enormous benefits, simply because of the unethical actions of one or two corporations. It runs parallel with the nuclear power scare. I don't want to see development in this area stunted to the degree that fission has been. I do want to see viability studies for cross-species pollination, use of crops in areas that do not have wild cousins in the immediate vicinity, introduced herbicide vulnerabilities for control, consideration for seed dispersal methods (i.e, let's not make fast-growing Antarctic-hardy varieties of thistle FFS), etc. etc.

I generally agree, but I think that sometimes, part of "due caution" is tightening up regulations a bit until some of the major legal, ethical, or scientific kinks are worked out of the system. As of yet, they haven't been.

[smigenboger]

Dog breeding is pretty messed up, but that's similarly due to them being bred for certain traits outside of any natural environment that would actually test their feasibility as organisms, instead opting for weird and arbitrary cosmetic standards over anything else. (I watched that BBC documentary/expose on pedigree dogs and it was pretty sickening)

Mind sharing where I can find that?

[G-Flex]

It's called "Pedigree Dogs Exposed", and I found an online copy here (Myspace, of all places!), which seems complete and in quality that isn't COMPLETELY atrocious.

Some of it's a bit sensationalistic, but there's a lot of decent information too.

[smigenboger]

Thanks for pulling that up.

I do believe cheetahs are also horribly inbred, without human interference.

[kilakan]

Thanks for pulling that up.

I do believe cheetahs are also horribly inbred, without human interference.

wouldn't us killing them all off, causing the last ones to have to inbreed count as human interference?

[G-Flex]

Dangerous inbreeding does happen in the natural world when a population is simply too small to sustain itself. Granted, with dogs, it's more than inbreeding: It's selectively breeding according to completely arbitrary standards that have little to nothing to do with the health or functionality of the dog (an example: breeding dogs with curled tails, even if this gives them severe spinal problems as a side effect).

[smigenboger]

Thanks for pulling that up.

I do believe cheetahs are also horribly inbred, without human interference.

wouldn't us killing them all off, causing the last ones to have to inbreed count as human interference?

Before that, during the last ice age, almost all the cheetahs were wiped except a small group, so essentially they've all been from the same family for a long time.

Then we came in.

[Siquo]

The same happened to humans, they think. We're all inbred.

Personally I've been scared by American "chemically indistinguishable growth-hormone meat". The fact that you can only measure small amounts does not mean it does jack shit. Hormones especially, as you only need small amounts of those to gain big effects in your body, as they are key-molecules that stop and start certain processes.

As to the meat:
Children as old as 8 or 9 who have eaten a lot of meat are already going into puberty. 
Studies are not conclusive but underway. And an article from a biased source, but with good sources.

I like my steaks. Rare. Bleedin' rare. But a lot less frequent than I used to, and preferably "biological".

[G-Flex]

I think early puberty might be a sign of better health in children as a whole. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I think that children being less in and having better nutrition overall can have an impact. Granted, obesity probably doesn't help.



I'm not sure many farms even use growth hormones on their cattle anymore; pretty much every milk jug I ever see says they don't.

[ChairmanPoo]

Personally I've been scared by American "chemically indistinguishable growth-hormone meat". The fact that you can only measure small amounts does not mean it does jack shit. Hormones especially, as you only need small amounts of those to gain big effects in your body, as they are key-molecules that stop and start certain processes.

As to the meat:
Children as old as 8 or 9 who have eaten a lot of meat are already going into puberty. 
Studies are not conclusive but underway. And an article from a biased source, but with good sources.

growth hormone does not trigger puberty.

And IIRC 8 or 9 is not  outside the norm for puberty.

[Siquo]

1. It might.
2. It is where I live.

Googlefu: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7148975.ece

[ChairmanPoo]

No it isn't. And no it can't. It's not even the same kind of hormone, for crying out loud. Sexual hormones are steroids, and growth hormone is peptidic.

That article, if you notice, doesn't state that it's outside the norm (which IIRC is 8 for girls and 9 for boys). It just says that there is a trend of children hitting puberty earlier (but not outside the norm) and doesn't make wild guesses about the cause.

[G-Flex]

No it isn't. And no it can't. It's not even the same kind of hormone, for crying out loud. Sexual hormones are steroids, and growth hormone is peptidic.

For what it's worth, pulses of elevated GnRH (which is a peptide hormone) seem to trigger puberty. Sex hormones themselves are obviously involved in puberty, but the production of those is obviously not self-stimulated; something else triggers them.


Eight years old isn't young at all for girls to begin puberty, though. I'm not sure about boys.