PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Evolution machine: Genetic engineering on fast forward


KILLER_CLOWN
06-27-2011, 11:06 AM
Automated genetic tinkering is just the start this machine could be used to rewrite the language of life and create new species of humans

IT IS a strange combination of clumsiness and beauty. Sitting on a cheap-looking worktop is a motley ensemble of flasks, trays and tubes squeezed onto a home-made frame. Arrays of empty pipette tips wait expectantly. Bunches of black and grey wires adorn its corners. On the top, robotic arms slide purposefully back and forth along metal tracks, dropping liquids from one compartment to another in an intricately choreographed dance. Inside, bacteria are shunted through slim plastic tubes, and alternately coddled, chilled and electrocuted. The whole assembly is about a metre and a half across, and controlled by an ordinary computer.

Say hello to the evolution machine. It can achieve in days what takes genetic engineers years. So far it is just a prototype, but if its proponents are to be believed, future versions could revolutionise biology, allowing us to evolve new organisms or rewrite whole genomes with ease. It might even transform humanity itself.

These days everything from your food and clothes to the medicines you take may well come from genetically modified plants or bacteria. The first generation of engineered organisms has been a huge hit with farmers and manufacturers - if not consumers. And this is just the start. So far organisms have only been changed in relatively crude and simple ways, often involving just one or two genes. To achieve their grander ambitions, such as creating algae capable of churning out fuel for cars, genetic engineers are now trying to make far more sweeping changes.
Grand ambitions

Yet changing even a handful of genes takes huge amounts of time and money. For instance, a yeast engineered to churn out the antimalarial drug artemisinin has been hailed as one of the great success stories of synthetic biology. However, it took 150 person-years and cost $25 million to add or tweak around a dozen genes - and commercial production has yet to begin.

The task is so difficult and time-consuming because biological systems are so complex. Even simple traits usually involve networks of many different genes, which can behave in unpredictable ways. Changes often do not have the desired effect, and tweaking one gene after another to get things working can be a very slow and painstaking process.

Many biologists think the answer is to try to eliminate the guesswork. They are creating libraries of ready-made "plug-and-play" components that should behave in a reliable way when put together to create biologicial circuits. But George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, thinks there is a far quicker way: let evolution do all the hard work for us. Instead of trying to design every aspect of the genetic circuitry involved in a particular trait down to the last DNA letter, his idea is to come up with a relatively rough design, create lots of variants on this design and select the ones that work best.

The basic idea is hardly original; various forms of directed evolution are already used to design things as diverse as proteins and boats. Church's group, however, has developed a machine for "evolving" entire organisms - and it works at an unprecedented scale and speed. The system has the potential to add, change or switch off thousands of genes at a time - Church calls this "multiplexing" - and it can generate billions of new strains in days.

Of course, there are already plenty of ways to generate mutations in cells, from zapping them with radiation to exposing them to dangerous chemicals. What's different about Church's machine is that it can target the genes that affect a particular characteristic and alter them in specific ways. That greatly increases the odds of success. Effectively, rather than spending years introducing one set of specific changes, bioengineers can try out thousands of combinations at once. Peter Carr, a bioengineer at MIT Media Lab who is part of the group developing the technology, describes it as "highly directed evolution".

The first "evolution machine" was built by Harris Wang, a graduate student in Church's lab. To prove it worked, he started with a strain of the E. coli bacterium that produced small quantities of lycopene, the pigment that makes tomatoes red. The strain was also modified to produce some viral enzymes. Next, he synthesised 50,000 DNA strands with sequences that almost matched parts of the 24 genes involved in lycopene production, but with a range of variations that he hoped would affect the amount of lycopene produced. The DNA and the bacteria were then put into the evolution machine.

The machine let the E. coli multiply, mixed them with the DNA strands, and applied an electric shock to open up the bacterial cells and let the DNA get inside. There, some of the added DNA was swapped with the matching target sequences in the cells' genomes. This process, called homologous recombination, is usually very rare, which is where the viral enzymes come in. They trick cells into treating the added DNA as its own, greatly increasing the chance of homologous recombination.

The effect was to create new variants of the targeted genes while leaving the rest of the genome untouched. It was unlikely that all 24 genes would be altered simultaneously in any one bacterium, so the cycle was repeated over and over to increase the proportion of cells with mutations in all 24 genes.

Repeating the cycle 35 times generated an estimated 15 billion new strains, each with a different combination of changes in the target genes. Some made five times as much lycopene as the original strain, Wang's team reported in 2009 ( Nature, vol 460, p 894).

It took Wang just three days to do better than the biosynthesis industry has managed in years. And it was no one-off - he has since repeated the trick for the textile dye indigo.

Church calls this bold approach multiplex automated genome engineering, or MAGE. In essence, he has applied the key principles that have led to the astonishing advances in DNA sequencing - parallel processing and automation - to genetic engineering. And since Church was one of the founders of the human genome project and helped develop modern sequencing methods, he knows what he is doing.

Just as labs all over the world now buy thousands of automated DNA sequencing machines, so Church envisions them buying automated evolution machines. He hopes to sell them relatively cheaply, at around $90,000 apiece. "We're dedicated to bringing the price down for everybody, rather than doing some really big project that nobody can repeat," Church says.

He hopes the machines will greatly accelerate the process of producing novel microbes. LS9, a biofuels company based near San Francisco that was co-founded by Church, has said it hopes to use MAGE to engineer E. coli that can produce renewable fuels. Church and colleagues are also adapting the approach for use with other useful bacteria, including Shewanella, which can convert toxic metals such as uranium into an insoluble form, and cyanobacteria which can extract energy from light using photosynthesis.
A big revolution

In principle, the technique should work with plant and animal cells as well as microbes. New methods will have to be developed for coaxing cells to swap in tailored DNA for each type of organism, but Church and his colleagues say that progress has already been made in yeast and mammalian cells.

"I think it is a big revolution in genome engineering," says Kristala Jones Prather, a bioengineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is not part of Church's collaboration. "You don't have to already know what the answer is. You can manipulate multiple things at a time, and let the cell find a solution for you."

Because biological systems are so complex, it is a huge advantage to be able to tweak lots of genes simultaneously, rather than one at a time, she says. "In almost every case you'll get a different solution that's a better solution."

The disadvantage of Church's approach is that the "better solution" is mixed up with millions of poorer solutions. Prather points out that the technique is limited by how easy it is to screen for the characteristics that you want. Wang selected good lycopene producers by growing 100,000 of the strains he had created in culture dishes and simply picking out the brightest red colonies. "Essentially nothing that we use in my lab can be screened so easily," Prather says.

By automating selection and using a few tricks, though, it should be practical to screen for far more subtle characteristics. For instance, biosensors that light up when a particular substance is produced could be built into the starting strain. "The power going forward will have to do with clever selections and screens," says Church.

As revolutionary as this approach is, Church thinks MAGE's most far-reaching potential lies elsewhere. He reckons it will be possible to use the evolution machine to make many thousands of specific changes to a cell's DNA: essentially, to rewrite genomes.

At the moment, making extensive changes to even the smallest genome is extremely costly and laborious. Last year, the biologist and entrepreneur Craig Venter announced that his team had replaced a bacterium's genome with a custom-written one (Science, vol 329, p 52). His team synthesised small pieces of DNA with a specific sequence, and then joined them together to create an entire genome. It was an awesome achievement, but it took 400 person-years of labour and cost around $40 million.

MAGE can do the same job far more cheaply and efficiently by rewriting existing genomes, Church thinks. The idea is that instead of putting DNA strands into the machine with a range of different mutations, you add only DNA with the specific changes you want. Even if you are trying to change hundreds or thousands of genes at once, after a few cycles in the machine, a good proportion of the cells should have all the desired changes. This can be checked by sequencing.

If the idea works it would make feasible some visionary projects that are currently impossibly difficult. Church, needless to say, has something suitably ambitious in mind. In fact, it is the reason he devised MAGE in the first place.

In 2004 he had joined forces with Joseph Jacobson, an engineer at the MIT Media Lab, best known as inventor of the e-ink technology used in e-readers. Searching for a "grand goal" in bioengineering, the pair hit upon the idea of altering life's genetic code. Rather than just alter the sequence of DNA, they want to change the very language in which the instructions for life are written (see diagram).

This is not as alarming as it might sound. Because all existing life uses essentially the same genetic code, organisms that translate DNA using a different code would be behind a "genetic firewall", unable to swap DNA with any normal living thing. If they escaped into the wild, they would not be able to spread any engineered components. Nor would they be able to receive any genes from natural bacteria that would endow them with antibiotic resistance or the ability to make toxins. "Any new DNA coming in or any DNA coming out doesn't work," says Church. "We're hoping that people who are concerned, including us, about escape from industrial processes, will find these safer."

There is another huge advantage: organisms with an altered genetic code would be immune to viruses, which rely on the protein-making machinery of the cells they infect to make copies of themselves. In a cell that uses a different genetic code, the viral blueprints will be mistranslated, and any resulting proteins will be garbled and unable to form new viruses.

Doing this in bacteria or cell lines used for growing chemicals would be of huge importance to industry, where viral infections can shut down entire production lines. And the approach is not necessarily limited to single cells. "It's conceivable that it could be done in animals," says Carr.
Completely virus-proof

Carr and his colleagues have already begun eliminating redundant codons from the genome of E. coli. They are starting with the rarest, the stop codon TAG, which appears 314 times. Each instance will be replaced by a different stop codon, TAA. So far they have used MAGE to create 32 E. coli strains that each have around 10 of the necessary changes, and are now combining them to create a single strain with all the changes. Carr says this should be completed within the next few months, after which he hopes to start replacing another 12 redundant codons. To make a bacterium completely virus-proof will probably require replacing tens of thousands of redundant codons, he says, as well as modifying the protein-making factories so they no longer recognise these codons.

To ensure novel genes cannot be translated if they get passed on to other organisms, the team would have to go a step further and reassign the freed-up codons so a different amino acid to normal is added to a protein when they occur. This could include amino acids that do not exist in nature, opening the door to new types of chemistry in living cells. Artificial amino acids could be used to create proteins that do not degrade as easily, for example, which could be useful in industry and medicine.

There are potential dangers in making organisms virus-proof, though. Most obviously, they might have an advantage over competing species if they escaped into the wild, allowing them to dominate environments with potentially destructive effects. In the case of E. coli, those environments could include our guts.

"We want to be very careful. The goal is to isolate these organisms from part of the natural sphere with which they normally interact," says Carr. "We shouldn't pretend that we understand all possible ramifications, and we need to study these modified organisms carefully." But he points out that we deal with similar issues already, such as invasive species running riot in countries where they have no natural predators. Additional safeguards could be built in, such as making modified organisms dependent on nutrients they can get only in a lab or factory. And if the worst came to the worst, biologists could create viruses capable of killing their errant organisms. Such viruses would not be able to infect normal cells.

Church argues that with proper safety and regulatory controls, there is no reason why the approach shouldn't be used widely. "I think that to some extent you'd like every organism to be multi-virus resistant," he says. "Or at least industrial microbes, agricultural species and humans."

Yes, humans. Church is already adapting MAGE for genetically modifying human stem cell lines. The work, funded by the US National Human Genome Research Institute, aims to create human cell lines with subtly different genomes in order to test ideas about which mutations cause disease and how. "Sequencing is now a million times cheaper, and there are a million times as many hypotheses being generated," he says. "We'd like to develop the resources so that people can quickly test hypotheses about the human genome by synthesising new versions."

more at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028181.700-evolution-machine-genetic-engineering-on-fast-forward.html?page=4

KILLER_CLOWN
06-27-2011, 11:20 AM
Genetic Modification Gone Wild: 10 Signs That Our World May Be Destined To Resemble A Really Bad Science Fiction Movie

http://endoftheamericandream.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Genetic-Modification-Gone-Wild-10-Signs-That-Our-World-May-Be-Destined-To-Resemble-A-Really-Bad-Science-Fiction-Movie-250x165.jpg

Did you know that today scientists are actually producing mice that tweet like birds, cats that glow in the dark, "monster salmon", "spider goats", cow/human hybrids, pig/human hybrids and even mouse/human hybrids? The very definition of life on earth is changing right before our eyes. Many scientists believe that genetic modification holds the key to feeding the entire planet and healing all of our diseases, but others are warning that genetic modification could literally transform our environment into a desolate wasteland and cause our world to resemble a really bad science fiction movie. For decades, scientists around the globe have been fooling around with DNA and have been transplanting genes from one species to another. But now technology has advanced so dramatically that just about the only thing limiting scientists are their imaginations.

The things you are about to read about below are truly bizarre. In recent years, science has really "pushed the envelope" and scientists all over the planet are quite eager to push it even farther.

But is genetic modification really safe? Just because we have discovered that we can do something does that mean that we should rush forward and do it?

Recent films such as "Splice" have highlighted some of the potential dangers of genetic modification, but most scientists don't see any reason to be concerned.

In fact, in most countries scientists seem very eager to push regulators to allow them to go farther and farther. In quite a few countries there are very few boundaries left.

This is a point that I made in an article I authored for another blog called The Future.... http://futurestorm.blogspot.com/2010/12/human-animal-hybrids-human-cloning-and.html

At this point there are very few restrictions remaining on fields such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, synthetic biology, cloning and genetic modification. All over the world, scientists are feverishly combining different kinds of animals together, adding plant genes to certain animals, and even putting human DNA into plants and animals. Life as we know it is literally changing, and it is very hard to tell what the future is going to look like if all of this continues.

Sadly, most people have no idea what is going on out there. Most people believe that scientists only have our best interests at heart and that they would never do anything "weird" or "dangerous".

Well, read the following examples of genetic modification below and decide for yourself whether or not things have gotten out of control.

The following are 10 signs that our world may be destined to resemble a really bad science fiction movie....

#1 In China, scientists have inserted human genes into the DNA of dairy cow embryos. At this point, approximately 200 hybrid cows have been successfully produced. These cows can produce milk that is virtually identical to human breast milk. The scientists hope to have huge herds of these cows producing an alternative to human breast milk soon, and they hope to have this "milk" sold in global supermarkets within 3 years.

#2 In Canada, scientists at the University of Guelph in the province of Ontario have produced what they are calling "enviropigs". These "enviropigs" have had genes from mice spliced into them, and according to the scientists they produce less phosphorous in their poop so they are being touted as environmentally friendly. Authorities in both the U.S. and Canada are evaluating whether or not to allow these "enviropigs" into the food supply.

#3 Scientists in Japan have created a genetically modified mouse that tweets like a bird.

#4 One U.S. corporation can now produce a very muscular "monster salmon" which can grow up to three times as fast as normal salmon do.

#5 Science can now produce cats that glow in the dark. A genetically modified cat created by scientists named Mr. Green Genes was the very first fluorescent cat in the United States. But Mr. Green Genes was not the first "glow in the dark cat" in the world. That honor went to a cat created by a team of scientists in South Korea.

#6 In Japan, scientists have discovered that they can grow rat organs inside of mice. The researchers hope to use the same technology to grow human organs inside of pigs.

#7 But Japan is not the only one doing this kind of research. In Missouri, entities that are part pig and part human are being grown with the goal of providing organs for human transplants.

#8 Scientists at Rockefeller University have injected human genes into mice. These "humanized mice" are being used to study the spread of the hepatitis C virus.

#9 U.S. scientists have discovered that they can actually "grow" new human organs from scratch. The following is a quote from a recent Newsweek article....

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/It%20might%20sound%20like%20science%20fiction,%20but%20growing%20new%20organs%20from%20scratch%20has %20already%20become%20reality.%20In%20addition%20to%20bladders,%20scientists%20have%20engineered%20n ew%20skin,%20bone,%20cartilage,%20corneas,%20windpipes,%20arteries,%20and%20urethras.

It might sound like science fiction, but growing new organs from scratch has already become reality. In addition to bladders, scientists have engineered new skin, bone, cartilage, corneas, windpipes, arteries, and urethras.

#10 Believe it or not, a company in Canada known as Nexia has actually taken goats and has genetically modified them to be part spider. The genetic modification process causes these "spider goats" to produce spider silk protein in their milk. This spider silk protein is collected, purified and spun into incredibly strong fibers. These fibers are apparently more durable than Kevlar, more flexible than nylon, and much stronger than steel.

As frightening as all of those examples may sound, the truth is that the genetic modification of plants has gone even farther than the genetic modification of animals has gone.

Today, approximately 93 percent of all soybeans and approximately 80 percent of all corn in the United States have been genetically modified.

Considering the fact that corn is literally in thousands upon thousands of our food products, there is a really good chance that you consumed some genetically modified food today.

Are you certain that it was safe?

Genetically modified crops have been linked to organ disruption in at least 19 different studies.

In addition, there is also an increasing body of evidence that suggests that genetically modified food actually alters our digestive systems.

Do we really know everything that we need to know about genetically modified food?

Perhaps we should have investigated all of this sooner. The truth is that once genetically modified crops get out into the wild it is just about impossible to put the genie back into the bottle.

A while back, a genetically modified strain of maize that was banned in the EU was accidentally sown all across Germany.

Oops.

But once it got out there was no way of totally eliminating it. In fact, in many areas of the world genetically modified crop strains are breeding natural crop strains out of existence.

We are permanently changing the natural order of things.

Is that really a great idea?

Sadly, things are only going to become much more bizarre in future years.

DARPA's current budget actually includes money that is allocated for the development of this kind of technology. Apparently the goal is to someday produce "super soldiers" with "edited DNA" and implantable microchips.

In this article I have only talked about the stuff that we know about and that is admitted in the mainstream media.

So what is going on out there that we don't know about and that the mainstream media is not admitting?

In past decades, genetic engineering was extremely expensive and it was only done by top scientists.

Today, even college students are transplanting genes and creating new lifeforms. There seems to no longer be any taboo on monkeying around with the fabric of life. The field of "synthetic biology" is extremely hot right now and very small companies are "creating" new plants, new animals and even new microorganisms in garages and basements all over the globe.

So what will the future bring?

Will genetic modification enable us to feed the entire world and will it enable us to heal all of the horrible diseases which afflict us?

Or will genetic modification result in a nightmarish world where "man-made life" and twisted human-animal hybrid creatures are free to roam and breed?

Will our bizarre experimentation destroy the environment and turn this planet into a bizarre wasteland?

Only time will tell.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/genetic-modification-gone-wild-10-signs-that-our-world-may-be-destined-to-resemble-a-really-bad-science-fiction-movie

LiveSteam
06-27-2011, 11:20 AM
Finally
A Teenage mutant Ninja turtle for grown ups

L.A. Chieffan
06-27-2011, 11:22 AM
i wanna cat that glows in the dark

LiveSteam
06-27-2011, 11:23 AM
i wanna cat that glows in the dark
I wanna lab that shits pheasants & quail

L.A. Chieffan
06-27-2011, 11:23 AM
anyways, huxley was a pretty smart guy

Brock
06-27-2011, 11:25 AM
As frightening as all of those examples may sound, the truth is that the genetic modification of plants has gone even farther than the genetic modification of animals has gone.



I didn't see anything frightening about any of those examples.

Chief Faithful
06-27-2011, 11:25 AM
Manbearpig!

KILLER_CLOWN
06-27-2011, 11:27 AM
I didn't see anything frightening about any of those examples.

Genetically modified crops have been linked to organ disruption in at least 19 different studies.

In addition, there is also an increasing body of evidence that suggests that genetically modified food actually alters our digestive systems.

I'll take what God has given us.

durtyrute
06-27-2011, 11:28 AM
All of the problems that we have in this world and these ass wipes are making glow in the dark cats. Get the fuck outta here!!

LiveSteam
06-27-2011, 11:29 AM
Can they make a woman that has a puss like Jill Kelly, tits like Susann Summers,Ass like Heather Locklear, with a Bo Derick's face? when they do this I will be impressed

Pants
06-27-2011, 11:30 AM
It's easy to be afraid of something you don't understand, KILLER CROWN. Don't fret so much, your life quality will improve significantly.

Brock
06-27-2011, 11:30 AM
Genetically modified crops have been linked to organ disruption in at least 19 different studies.

In addition, there is also an increasing body of evidence that suggests that genetically modified food actually alters our digestive systems.

Well, that isn't the part of the article I was referring to, but you're going to have to find something a lot more specific than these general statements to worry me.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-27-2011, 11:30 AM
Can they make a woman that has a puss like Jill Kelly, tits like Susann Summers,Ass like Heather Locklear, with a Bo Derick's face? when they do this I will be impressed

Nah they'll probably create a microchip that takes the need for this away.

L.A. Chieffan
06-27-2011, 11:32 AM
Can they make a woman that has a puss like Jill Kelly, tits like Susann Summers,Ass like Heather Locklear, with a Bo Derick's face? when they do this I will be impressed

those chicks are old dude

LiveSteam
06-27-2011, 12:06 PM
those chicks are old dude

Yes they are old now, but 20 years ago they were the jerk off material of the times. Heather will never get old. IMO

KILLER_CLOWN
06-27-2011, 12:26 PM
5 Reasons NOT to Eat Genetically Modified Foods

“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist.

Most Americans are unaware that they eat a steady diet of genetically modified food. This is mainly because the GMO giants, as if ashamed of their creation, refuse to allow labels on food that contains genetic engineering.

Consumers are also generally distracted by all the other things on food labels that they're supposed to be concerned about. And when they are exposed to information on GMOs, it's usually from a mainstream source featuring "philanthropist" Bill Gates beaming a smile while expounding the "benefits" that GMOs bring to starving people.

They typically don't hear about studies that show crop yields with GMOs are actually lower than with non-GM crops, or that they require far more pesticides than heirloom seeds, or that some are patented "terminator" seeds that don't re-germinate, which ensures an eventual monopoly over food. Or, perhaps one of the worst findings, that hamsters in one study became completely infertile, among other disturbing effects, after only 3 generations of eating GM soy.

“Let’s be clear. As of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.” – former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman.

Clearly these results would most benefit a sinister agenda of food control and population reduction through proven effects on health and sterility. But they're not the only reasons consumers should be concerned about eating genetically modified food. Supporting GMOs in any capacity, not least through ignorance, has countless negative consequences.

Here are five reasons not to eat genetically modified food:

1. GMOs destroy the environment: The repeated use of land for single-crop agriculture (monoculture), whether GMO or not, has resulted in dead soil that requires heavy doses of chemical fertilizer and pesticides to be productive. Significantly, GMOs were primarily designed to be resistant to powerful pesticides to encourage their use. These deadly pesticides are applied in heavier doses than traditional crops need and then leach into waterways, polluting everything in their path. It is widely accepted that this phenomenon is largely responsible for the Gulf Dead Zone that now spans the size of New Jersey. Furthermore, the backbone of industrial agriculture, now led by GM crops, is fossil fuels. From plowing, fertilizing, planting, applying pesticides, harvesting, to delivery for consumption; our food system is dangerously dependent on oil. In short, any food innovation that destroys the environment clearly will not be beneficial to humanity.

2. GMOs are unhealthy: GM foods have undergone little long-term safety testing for humans, but several animal tests have shown negative health effects. Recently, a major study verified that the substance used in most major pesticides including best-selling Roundup, glyphosate, causes birth defects. And in 2007, another independent study proved that Roundup induced sterility in male lab rats. Could this be the reason for the massive decline in fertility seen in human males? A 2009 study found that glyphosate caused "total cell death in human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells within 24 hours." As mentioned above, the 2010 study on hamsters eating GM soy, as reported by Jeffrey Smith:

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

It should also be noted that nearly all studies pertaining to eating GMOs resulted in some form of bacterial gut rot and new allergies in the test animals. So, we still don't have conclusive studies that genetically mutated foods are bad for our health, but where there's smoke, there's fire. Don't get burned.

3. Unnatural genetic contamination: Releasing any foreign genetic mutation into the wild can have unpredictable consequences. It has been compared to the disastrous results of releasing a new animal species that isn't native to a territory -- except GMOs are not native to any territory. GMOs aggressively cross-contaminate neighboring organic plants, causing incalculable damage. An unapproved GM rice that was grown for only one year in field trials was found to have caused extensive contamination of the US rice supply. A Spanish study found that GM maize “has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible”. Worse still, the GM Giants know this happens and actually sue farmers for patent infringement when their organic plants become genetically mutated. Can it get more evil? Sadly, yes it can...

4. GMO cartel has a near monopoly over food: It is estimated that over 90% of soy fields in America are planted with Monsanto GMOs, as reported by BestMeal; "In 1996, when Monsanto began selling Roundup Ready soybeans, only 2% of soybeans in the US contained their patented gene. By 2008, over 90% of soybeans in the US contained Monsanto's GMO gene." In another powerhouse soy producer, Argentina is reportedly planted with 98% GMO soy, and more than half of all global soy belongs to Monsanto. And GM corn is quickly nearing monopolistic numbers as well.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KIWHoSIEtlM/TgfJOkQkxLI/AAAAAAAAJpg/qWDt1kfUA94/s1600/Growth+of+GMO+foods+USDA+chart.gif

Incidentally, Big Ag giants had much help from the American taxpayer in creating their monopoly through farm and corn ethanol subsidies, which unfairly undercuts competition from heirloom farmers abroad. Furthermore, the U.S. government has been directly funding the research and development of these products, yet the monopoly fiercely protects its private patents. The very notion of patenting food would seemingly allow for a complete ownership of food, and life itself. The growing monopolistic nature of food is perhaps more frightening than the possible health effects. Break the monopoly by supporting local food producers.

5. Destroys farmers: Besides the cross-contamination that destroys organic farmers, the actual GMO farmers are not much better off. In fact, it may be more appropriate to refer to them as share croppers for GMO masters. They are at the mercy each year to Big GMO for seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, and in many cases, financing. Watch The World According to Monsanto below for an all-encompassing perspective of how GMOs have affected farmers:

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/5-reasons-not-to-eat-gmo-foods.html

Iowanian
06-27-2011, 12:46 PM
I'm fairly certain it's going to take modern science at least a decade to fix the scratch on killerclown's record.


Must have taken at least a 30' swan dive onto the top of the head into an empty pool.



"After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups."

At least we now know which foods to provide long term welfare moms.

Backwards Masking
06-27-2011, 08:38 PM
At least we now know which foods to provide long term welfare moms.


LOL! Good call, tired of looking at my Medicaid (I think that's the bucket they use for Fertile Myrtle) and thinking about what I could have spent that money on.