• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The DNA Protection Act of 2013

Your vote on this proposal would be?


  • Total voters
    40
Oh Harry, maybe this will help you not to resemble that word you insist on using in spite of its spot on description of knowledge on this topic:


Differences Between Hybridization and Genetic Modification
Trevor Caswell
February 12, 2012

The difference between Hybridized and Genetically Modified foods is often confusing for people. Many believe that people have been genetically modifying things for thousands of years when in reality we have only been hybridizing. What is the difference and why are the waters so murky? Does the difference even matter or are we just splitting hairs? People are rightly concerned about the safety and healthiness of their foods as can be seen by the increased demand for organic and in this same way we should be concerned about the differences between hybridization and genetically modified organisms (GMO's). Hybridization is a natural process that can be controlled by man while genetic modification is a completely lab-made process that threatens not only the existence of organic foods and thereby our health, but also the sovereignty of people over their food supply.

Hybridization is a process that has been happening naturally throughout the existence of life on earth. Whenever two plants cross pollinate or when two animals reproduce a form of hybridization occurs. The same process that determines the colour of your eyes or hair is essentially a hybridization. Your DNA remains completely human but dominant and recessive genes that you inherit from your parents produce your specific traits be they tall, short, blue eyed or brown haired. The same thing occurs in nature when two plants from the same family cross pollinate. If a large watery tomato is crossed with a small meaty tomato you mighty luckily end up with a large, meaty tomato. The DNA is still completely a tomato but different characteristics have been triggered. This cross pollination could be made possible by a bee, a backyard farmer with a cotton swab, or even by the wind but as long as the two plants are in the same family it can and does occur naturally. One thing of note about hybridization is that it doesn't always result in a line of the new hybrid that will continue with the same characteristics. For example, seed saved from our new large, meaty tomato may revert to producing plants with the characteristics of it's parents (large, watery or small, meaty) therefore if we continually want our large, meaty tomato we would need to keep cross-pollinating the parents plants in order to get the desired seed. As often as not seed from the hybridized plant will continue to produce the desired outcome and hybridization has led to a great number of the favourite foods we have been growing and eating for centuries.

Genetic Modification is an entirely man-made procedure where as the name implies, the genetic code of the organism is changed. The genetic change can be made between plants of the same family or by inserting DNA information from a completely different plant (or animal) into the DNA of another. Once made the new change is dominant and forever and any descendants from the organism will carry the modification within their DNA. It is important to understand that the changes made in genetic modification become dominate traits and that if a natural cross-pollination occurs via the wind, or by a bee, etc. between the GMO and a non-GMO plant the resulting plant will be genetically modified- there is no going back. How the new genetic information is placed into the DNA is also incredibly important as to do so they need a vector (or carrier) and what they use is either bacteria or a virus and this bacteria or virus remains as part of the new DNA passed down from generation to generation (except in the case of a genetic modification resulting in Terminator Seeds which are completely infertile). If we go back to using tomato's as an example, in order to make a frost resistant type, the anti-freeze transgene from a Winter Flounder (yes, a fish) was placed into the DNA of a tomato via bacteria. Other modifications are made to make plants resistant to certain herbicides but one result has been that the weeds we wanted to rid ourselves of with the herbicides have now also mutated and become resistant Super Weeds. One final note of importance regarding genetically modified seed is that they are patented and owned by corporations, making it no longer legal for individuals to save seed or share seed with their neighbours from one harvest to the next.

It's in the interest of certain corporations to keep the differences between hybridization and genetic modification muddy. The misinformed view that we have been genetically modifying things for centuries helps create an atmosphere of nonchalance. The fact is that there is a huge difference between the two and that genetic modification has the potential to have disastrous effects on our future food health and supplies as well as the loss of food sovereignty from individuals to corporations while hybridized foods pose no hazard to any of these things. Genetically modified seed is sold to us under the guises of higher yields which has proven to be untrue, and less use of pesticides which has also proven to be untrue and as Grandma always says "if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is".

Ah yes, the naturalistic fallacy.
You know, rattle snake venom is natural, why don't you inject that into your blood stream.
Shouldn't cause any harm. :roll:

Clearly this article is without bias.......
 
I'm not rambo, I'm just pointing it out. I can understand legislation that limits the methods used in research, but to cut it out altogether because a few people fear we're playing god is outrageous. (I'm not saying you said that, just that this bill is saying that)

Hey genius, the proposal does no such thing...maybe you should read stuff before leaping to conclusions?
Sec 3(c) allows for continued medical research and applications in strictly controlled environments etc, as it should be when using technologies that you dont fully understand as of yet.
 
Ah yes, the naturalistic fallacy.
You know, rattle snake venom is natural, why don't you inject that into your blood stream.
Shouldn't cause any harm. :roll:

Clearly this article is without bias.......


Harry you can remain that word which you have such an attachment to, or you can read and understand the proposal for what it is and what it is not, what it is not is a proposal that effects 'hybrids', on the other hand it is a proposal that effects GMO's...is that within your intellectual grasp or have I set the apple to high on the shelf again?
 
Harry you can remain that word which you have such an attachment to, or you can read and understand the proposal for what it is and what it is not, what it is not is a proposal that effects 'hybrids', on the other hand it is a proposal that effects GMO's...is that within your intellectual grasp or have I set the apple to high on the shelf again?

I know they are different and at the same time, similar.
You're assuming, at least as far as that paper you pushed goes, that natural equates to good/right/correct/whatever.

I don't care if fish genes are inserted into any other plant/animal, to reach the desired effect.
It doesn't bother me in the least.

A lot of the hullabaloo behind GMO's, is similar to the anti vacciners, anti irradiation groups, etc.
I simply don't care to read your biased material and fear based propaganda.
 
From the bill you posted:



This makes all genetic engineering of any kind completely illegal in california. And you want to try to say it doesn't impede science? Get out of town, clown.

Silly Rabid, tricks are for corps...the quest for profit initiates the scientific processes in the USA and then before the science is complete the motive for profit supplants the need for complete science thereby making your assessment backwards from reality. Stop the profit faucet and do the science first, that's what the proposal demands through its regulative devices.
 
Hey genius, the proposal does no such thing...maybe you should read stuff before leaping to conclusions?
Sec 3(c) allows for continued medical research and applications in strictly controlled environments etc, as it should be when using technologies that you dont fully understand as of yet.

You have absolutely no business telling people about "technologies they don't fully understand" given the level of ignorance displayed in the bill. Even the layman is aware that insects fall under the subset of animal and listing both is redundant. Ironically enough, your bill also fails to mitigate the worst risk of genetically modified organisms, as it doesn't cover viruses or bacteria.

Biotechnology does require considerable oversight and restrictions, but they should be decided by those well informed about the issue, not luddites spouting the naturalistic fallacy.
 
I know they are different and at the same time, similar.
You're assuming, at least as far as that paper you pushed goes, that natural equates to good/right/correct/whatever.

I don't care if fish genes are inserted into any other plant/animal, to reach the desired effect.
It doesn't bother me in the least.

A lot of the hullabaloo behind GMO's, is similar to the anti vacciners, anti irradiation groups, etc.
I simply don't care to read your biased material and fear based propaganda.

Harry again you are inaccurate in your assessment of my position.
I dont claim that "natural equates to good/right/correct" in the sense that you state such, for my its simply a numbers game, 'nature' inherently has all the numbers and though we are part of nature we as a species have yet to know and understand all the numbers. Equations are a funny and exact science Harry, get one number wrong or missing and it causes a chain reaction that effects everything.
 
You have absolutely no business telling people about "technologies they don't fully understand" given the level of ignorance displayed in the bill. Even the layman is aware that insects fall under the subset of animal and listing both is redundant. Ironically enough, your bill also fails to mitigate the worst risk of genetically modified organisms, as it doesn't cover viruses or bacteria.

Biotechnology does require considerable oversight and restrictions, but they should be decided by those well informed about the issue, not luddites spouting the naturalistic fallacy.


Well I'm glad your confident, can be a healthy thing, but should try to be correct because it helps to...
The USA defines 'insects' separately from 'animals', thus laws need to be written accordingly...see endangered species act for standing example ;)

ps...please learn definition of organism...thank you<3
 
Last edited:
Harry again you are inaccurate in your assessment of my position.
I dont claim that "natural equates to good/right/correct" in the sense that you state such, for my its simply a numbers game, 'nature' inherently has all the numbers and though we are part of nature we as a species have yet to know and understand all the numbers. Equations are a funny and exact science Harry, get one number wrong or missing and it causes a chain reaction that effects everything.

Nature is not a living entity by itself.
Sometimes "nature" makes bad stuff for humans, (i.e. see venomous snakes, spiders, bacteria and virus.)

I have no problem with reasonable restrictions for GMO's, that ensure their safety and quality.
What I have a problem with is people, who have the same mindset as anti vaccine, anti irradiation, etc, all backed up by huge biased information and a terrible understanding of science.

Going by your system, we would of been left, in the stone age.
No thanks.
 
Reminds me of when automobiles first came out, There were laws saying you have to have someone walk in front of the vehicule because they were so dangerous with the 5mph speedlimit!
At one point peopel thought you would die if you went over 100mph.
Someone at some point decided to limit the size of the bore on IC engines, thinking this would limit their size as they had decided a certain bore/stroke ratio was the optimal resulting in longer stroke engines to get around it.
The world is replete with examples of people who know squat about technology being afraid of said technology and trying to make laws to suspend/curb/ban said technology.
 
I'm for it simply because we need to be working towards reducing and controlling the human population, not proliferating it with altered freaks of science and nature.
 
Nature is not a living entity by itself.
Sometimes "nature" makes bad stuff for humans, (i.e. see venomous snakes, spiders, bacteria and virus.)

I have no problem with reasonable restrictions for GMO's, that ensure their safety and quality.
What I have a problem with is people, who have the same mindset as anti vaccine, anti irradiation, etc, all backed up by huge biased information and a terrible understanding of science.

Going by your system, we would of been left, in the stone age.
No thanks.

Not at all Harry, firstly nature is indiscriminate and is geared to operate or give notice to all the aspects of symbiotic life on this planet when it puts the numbers in sequence.
Humans on the other hand are not yet capable of calculating such equations let alone doing so absent of all that impedes or motivates our judgement.
Nature works by the numbers while we humans as a part of nature still only work with the numbers that we like or can see at this point etc...changing life equations is entirely non-comparable to marketing a new product or learning about fire because all such examples have limited consequences if bungled or even if purposefully intended to do harm, whereas the same cannot be definitively said about GE/GMO technologies due to the chain reactive nature of the effects of such.
 
Not at all Harry, firstly nature is indiscriminate and is geared to operate or give notice to all the aspects of symbiotic life on this planet when it puts the numbers in sequence.
Humans on the other hand are not yet capable of calculating such equations let alone doing so absent of all that impedes or motivates our judgement.
Nature works by the numbers while we humans as a part of nature still only work with the numbers that we like or can see at this point etc...changing life equations is entirely non-comparable to marketing a new product or learning about fire because all such examples have limited consequences if bungled or even if purposefully intended to do harm, whereas the same cannot be definitively said about GE/GMO technologies due to the chain reactive nature of the effects of such.

Yea, all you're doing again, is the naturalistic fallacy.

"Nature" has done things, that have had irreversible and dire consequences for many species on this planet.
You're assuming, that most things done by "nature" are correct, rather that just are.
 
Yea, all you're doing again, is the naturalistic fallacy.

"Nature" has done things, that have had irreversible and dire consequences for many species on this planet.
You're assuming, that most things done by "nature" are correct, rather that just are.

Harry your speaking of nature as if some mystical reasoning force that does this or that...from my view its not like that at all.
Nature just goes by the numbers, it is human judgement that extrapolates that into being 'good' or 'bad' based on our particular perceived need.
Nature works for the balanced needs of all and some times those numbers add up to a species going 'extinct', that's only 'good' or 'bad' from a human perspective, nature was only playing by the numbers.
No doubt if humans decide to start changing the numbers with no complete understanding of why or how the numbers are what they are then I'm guessing that we've got some big surprises coming our way...such surprises can even equate into extinction.
 
Harry your speaking of nature as if some mystical reasoning force that does this or that...from my view its not like that at all.
Nature just goes by the numbers, it is human judgement that extrapolates that into being 'good' or 'bad' based on our particular perceived need.
Nature works for the balanced needs of all and some times those numbers add up to a species going 'extinct', that's only 'good' or 'bad' from a human perspective, nature was only playing by the numbers.
No doubt if humans decide to start changing the numbers with no complete understanding of why or how the numbers are what they are then I'm guessing that we've got some big surprises coming our way...such surprises can even equate into extinction.

Which single species did natures numbers add up to during the "great dying?"

It's very unlikely that humans will have the same effect with GMO's, than did "natures" great dying.
Sorry, but your post is still filled with the naturalist fallacy.
 
Which single species did natures numbers add up to during the "great dying?"

It's very unlikely that humans will have the same effect with GMO's, than did "natures" great dying.
Sorry, but your post is still filled with the naturalist fallacy.

Harry your first query seems a bit incoherent...hard to know how to respond...but should suffice to say that the numbers added up to their inevitable total at that time just as they do in every moment in time, and that applies regardless of the particular scenario in question because the equation analogy applies to all scenario's.
We have science or deductive reasoning to help us contemplate what those numbers may have been at the time as exampled here:

The Great Dying - NASA Science
"Becker's team had previously found such gas-bearing buckyballs in rock layers associated with two known impact events: the 65 million-year-old Cretaceous-Tertiary impact and the 1.8 billion-year-old Sudbury impact crater in Ontario, Canada. They also found fullerenes containing similar gases in some meteorites. Taken together, these clues make a compelling case that a space rock struck the Earth at the time of the Great Dying.

But was an asteroid the killer, or merely an accomplice?

Many scientists believe that life was already struggling when the putative space rock arrived. Our planet was in the throes of severe volcanism. In a region that is now called Siberia, 1.5 million cubic kilometers of lava flowed from an awesome fissure in the crust. (For comparison, Mt. St. Helens unleashed about one cubic kilometer of lava in 1980.) Such an eruption would have scorched vast expanses of land, clouded the atmosphere with dust, and released climate-altering greenhouse gases."

As to the rest of your statement, its kind of like saying hypothetically that even though we don't know we need heat shielding and even though we don't know the distance so as to carry the sufficient amount of fuel and even though we haven't even figured out we need oxygen yet let alone how to store or produce enough, that "It's very unlikely that humans will have" a problem getting to the moon and back.
The only reason any moon mission was successful was because we had the above described info. With genetic engineering we simply don't yet have that info and the potential consequences are far greater reaching than a rocket failing to get to the moon as such unintended or intended effects could be as great as the 'great dying' in a worst case scenario.
 
Harry your first query seems a bit incoherent...hard to know how to respond...but should suffice to say that the numbers added up to their inevitable total at that time just as they do in every moment in time, and that applies regardless of the particular scenario in question because the equation analogy applies to all scenario's.
We have science or deductive reasoning to help us contemplate what those numbers may have been at the time as exampled here:

The Great Dying - NASA Science
"Becker's team had previously found such gas-bearing buckyballs in rock layers associated with two known impact events: the 65 million-year-old Cretaceous-Tertiary impact and the 1.8 billion-year-old Sudbury impact crater in Ontario, Canada. They also found fullerenes containing similar gases in some meteorites. Taken together, these clues make a compelling case that a space rock struck the Earth at the time of the Great Dying.

But was an asteroid the killer, or merely an accomplice?

Many scientists believe that life was already struggling when the putative space rock arrived. Our planet was in the throes of severe volcanism. In a region that is now called Siberia, 1.5 million cubic kilometers of lava flowed from an awesome fissure in the crust. (For comparison, Mt. St. Helens unleashed about one cubic kilometer of lava in 1980.) Such an eruption would have scorched vast expanses of land, clouded the atmosphere with dust, and released climate-altering greenhouse gases."

As to the rest of your statement, its kind of like saying hypothetically that even though we don't know we need heat shielding and even though we don't know the distance so as to carry the sufficient amount of fuel and even though we haven't even figured out we need oxygen yet let alone how to store or produce enough, that "It's very unlikely that humans will have" a problem getting to the moon and back.
The only reason any moon mission was successful was because we had the above described info. With genetic engineering we simply don't yet have that info and the potential consequences are far greater reaching than a rocket failing to get to the moon as such unintended or intended effects could be as great as the 'great dying' in a worst case scenario.

The problem is the you're continuously assuming that "nature" has it right in every case, even though you say "nature" isn't a thing, that can plan.

No we're learning more and more, but your apparent luddism is wanting us to prevent it's use, because we don't know every single possible thing.
With all that I doubt you'd want it legal then.

It's nothing again but, the naturalist fallacy, appeal to fear, etc.
You don't have much to back you up, except for these things.
 
Yea, all you're doing again, is the naturalistic fallacy.

"Nature" has done things, that have had irreversible and dire consequences for many species on this planet.
You're assuming, that most things done by "nature" are correct, rather that just are.

these arguments also assume that we aren't part of "nature" ourselves.

with some perspective, our cities and highway systems really aren't that different from what ants and beavers do. they are simply bigger and more complex. sustainability is a likely opposing argument, and in some cases, it has merit. however, an outright ban on a particular kind of research is not the same thing as finding a balance, and it would be highly counterproductive.
 
these arguments also assume that we aren't part of "nature" ourselves.

with some perspective, our cities and highway systems really aren't that different from what ants and beavers do. they are simply bigger and more complex. sustainability is a likely opposing argument, and in some cases, it has merit. however, an outright ban on a particular kind of research is not the same thing as finding a balance, and it would be highly counterproductive.

Precisely.
I thought of that too.

If "nature" did not want us to do these things, then why did "nature" give us the tools.
Animals, whether or not, they realize it, engage in selective breeding all the time, to enhance certain genetic traits in their species.
Ohh noes, GM animals!!!
 
The problem is the you're continuously assuming that "nature" has it right in every case, even though you say "nature" isn't a thing, that can plan.

No we're learning more and more, but your apparent luddism is wanting us to prevent it's use, because we don't know every single possible thing.
With all that I doubt you'd want it legal then.

It's nothing again but, the naturalist fallacy, appeal to fear, etc.
You don't have much to back you up, except for these things.

Harry, I said nothing about 'right' or 'wrong' either for that mater, this is your terminology.
Nature simply inherently has all the numbers to work with and we simply as of yet don't.
The proposal posted here simply forces science where profit motives have supplanted such.
If you were really a fan of the 'facts' and science then you would surely be in support of this proposal because it demands such before allowing the 'not ready for prime time' biotech players to bungle the gene pool much as other profit motivated 'experts' in other sectors have handled the economy etc for example.
Finally Harry, to that bit you keep parroting at the end of every post...you force me to then feed you crackers...I only wield the all powerful quote of destiny again because you have brought such on yourself...I did attempt mercy and reconciliation as I am required, but that seems to have failed...I know the Occam's Razor like blade of the quote of destiny is devastating, but don't fight the urge to continue even if it is just involuntary conditioned reflex of the nervous system, much like a decapitated snakes head will still bite even though oxygen has been cut off from the brain, or how its heart will still beat and the body will still coil and strike out in reflex up to a day after its beheading.

 
Harry, I said nothing about 'right' or 'wrong' either for that mater, this is your terminology.
Nature simply inherently has all the numbers to work with and we simply as of yet don't.
The proposal posted here simply forces science where profit motives have supplanted such.
If you were really a fan of the 'facts' and science then you would surely be in support of this proposal because it demands such before allowing the 'not ready for prime time' biotech players to bungle the gene pool much as other profit motivated 'experts' in other sectors have handled the economy etc for example.
Finally Harry, to that bit you keep parroting at the end of every post...you force me to then feed you crackers...I only wield the all powerful quote of destiny again because you have brought such on yourself...I did attempt mercy and reconciliation as I am required, but that seems to have failed...I know the Occam's Razor like blade of the quote of destiny is devastating, but don't fight the urge to continue even if it is just involuntary conditioned reflex of the nervous system, much like a decapitated snakes head will still bite even though oxygen has been cut off from the brain, or how its heart will still beat and the body will still coil and strike out in reflex up to a day after its beheading.





Totally awesome. I have known you from a past life when I was freezing Ted Williams:cool:
 
these arguments also assume that we aren't part of "nature" ourselves.

with some perspective, our cities and highway systems really aren't that different from what ants and beavers do. they are simply bigger and more complex. sustainability is a likely opposing argument, and in some cases, it has merit. however, an outright ban on a particular kind of research is not the same thing as finding a balance, and it would be highly counterproductive.

How in the world could you possibly deduce such a faulty conclusion?
Have you read the posts here? I can't imagine reading my posts and concluding such especially when I specifically state that from my perspective the opposite is true.
This place feels a lot like landing on planet assumption...or better planet backward assumption...and this is the same brain you use to wipe before flushing?
 
Last edited:
How in the world could you possibly deduce such a faulty conclusion?
Have you read the posts here? I can't imagine reading my posts and concluding such especially when I specifically state that from my perspective the opposite is true.
This place feels a lot like landing on planet assumption...or better planet backward assumption...and this is the same brain you use to wipe before flushing?

i work in molecular biology, and have also worked in food safety research. we aren't trying to kill you. scientists are trying to make corn grow in very dry environments, and to prevent pests from decimating crops.

i'm all for thoroughly testing any new kind of crop for safety. as for outright banning, though, not at all. that would be dumb.

just out of curiosity, though, what's your science background?
 
Back
Top Bottom