Oh it makes perfect sense; the companies making the seeds wont make money if you are able to produce your own.
Oh it makes perfect sense; the companies making the seeds wont make money if you are able to produce your own.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
Then don't buy it. I don't recall any laws requiring the French to stuff themselves with at least 1 pound of US food per day. Though, come to think of it, bullying the government into passing that would help our exports...
Anyways, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Buy French food.
They'll still be French food available, unless nearly everyone in France decides they'd rather buy something else, in which case it would only be you who doesn't like American food. In that case, it would be a small missile aimed only at your existence and not anyone else's.
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
- Tellos Athenaios
CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool - EB Install Guide - How to track down loading CTD's - EB 1.1 Maps thread
“ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
gmo are perfectly safe. do i know if im eating any? nope and dont give a damn doesnt matter at all.
gmos are the worlds future and you are nothing but a reactionary holding back humanities possibility. by your ridiculous efforts and the efforts of ridiculous groups like greenpeace a legitimate form of crop is being limited. so kudos to them for expanding their trade i approve of corporate espionage. rules and ethics are for losers to feel good about
As TA has alluded to in his post, all food is GMO. Cows were not the killable, milkable food dispensaries that they are today back 10,000 years ago when civilization first began. Wheat of all kinds, rice, fruit, you name it. All of our food has been modified by human guided breeding and selection. 2,000 years ago a bunch of farmers had a bunch of steer have sex with one specific cow because it produced 5% more milk then most other cows. Today a bunch of geneticists take a gene from a fish who lives in freezing temperatures and put it in a tomato so it doesn't die during a harsh winter. It's the same thing, people only freak out because the possibilities are endless. Where breeding limits the amount of genes to what is present in the global population of that species, now any gene from any species can benefit any other species on this Earth.
that about sums it up.....As TA has alluded to in his post, all food is GMO. Cows were not the killable, milkable food dispensaries that they are today back 10,000 years ago when civilization first began. Wheat of all kinds, rice, fruit, you name it. All of our food has been modified by human guided breeding and selection. 2,000 years ago a bunch of farmers had a bunch of steer have sex with one specific cow because it produced 5% more milk then most other cows. Today a bunch of geneticists take a gene from a fish who lives in freezing temperatures and put it in a tomato so it doesn't die during a harsh winter. It's the same thing, people only freak out because the possibilities are endless. Where breeding limits the amount of genes to what is present in the global population of that species, now any gene from any species can benefit any other species on this Earth.
guided breeding is simply gmo's on a slower scale.
i wrote a 23 page university paper defending gmo's surprisingly interesting
Last edited by Centurion1; 01-13-2011 at 04:51. Reason: forgot you euros think college means going to community college and not synonomous with university
GMOs are not without some risk, mainly when pests get hold of certain genes - such as providing resistance to pesticides.
Bacteria can generally absorb DNA form wherever, and since most antibacterials are form bacteria or fungi this changes little directly.
The next frontier is not cutting and pasting in existing genes for certain proteins, but designing new, more efficient (at last from our rather bias perspective) ones and sticking that DNA in.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
That and the fact that changing genetic markup may have unintended side effects. IIRC BSE is on this level little more than a mutation in m-RNA, a mere side effect of other changes. The problem is we don't really know very well what we are doing, yet. Breeding is comparatively simple: the actual hard, technical, complicated work is taken care of by the various animals/plants themselves.
- Tellos Athenaios
CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool - EB Install Guide - How to track down loading CTD's - EB 1.1 Maps thread
“ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.
My objection to GMO is based around the idea that these companies think they can literally patent genetics for uses in newer variations of old crops.
Monsanto keep trying to push GMO sugarbeet in order to sell Roundup not save the world, we should be wary of there motives and there GMO products.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
Ideally, things should not be patented. But patents are there to encourage R&D by offering a return for the next 15 years. After that the patent ends and it becomes generic - open to all.
Pharma companies are not there to save the world, but medicine would look very different without them.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
All true but the companies should not be given carte blanche either.
With food or secondary inputs into agri products it will be much easier for companies to control the patented material after the 15yrs is up. They will simply cease production of the old seed maybe two to three years before the patent runs out, newer companies will be incapable of producing the generic brand because it takes two strains to make a good seed and that applies even with sheep or cattle.
Imagine a world where a few large corporations control the input into say the worlds wheat supply for bread, the patent on the wheat runs out but they can demand that suppliers only use X brand for "Quality Control" hence your tied to a specific company for GMO wheat products.
The stuff wont kill you but your are stuck in an almost 19th century mining town relationship where you must buy from the company shop etc etc.
Last edited by gaelic cowboy; 01-13-2011 at 16:16.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
If the FDA and USDA were not corrupted heavily from Monsanto and other agriculture businesses, they would regulate properly and ensure that proper testing was done on any new variety of GMO. If a certain gene starts causing problems, it will probably reveal itself from long term inspection and toxicity reports from overseen animal consumption and testing. Companies always just want to rush the product out so they can get the jump which is why there is always at least one major pill from big pharma that is recalled from serious side effects due to lack of testing. At least, that is my understanding of it all.
What I don't understand is how Monsanto can corrupt them and Big Pharma hasn't. Its not like they're short on money: each company R&D budget is billions a year, and there are a lot of companies. One drug can earn them billions a year in turn.
I don't think you've any concept in how much testing goes on with drugs, nor how difficult it is to stop one being released when the event occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 and often after a length of time in a certain demographic of patients. Oh, and then find that needle from all the background adverse events that are not related... I think your last sentence shows your complete lack of understanding.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Wait, who said Big Pharma hasn't? As far as I know, there must be a reason why the US has a problem with how expensive our drugs are compared to other countries. (Although whatever happened to all those stories of people crossing into canada for prescription drugs?)
I admit that I don't know much about the industry. That's specifically why I added that last sentence in there. I understand there is a lot of testing, don't get wrong. I am not saying they create a drug and then start pumping it out into the market immediately. I am just saying that perhaps because making new drugs is an expensive business that the testing is still not as long as it could be because companies do have an incentive to make new products before the patents on their old ones expires. That's all I am saying. Not dissing the hard work people do in Pharma testing labs. To be honest, I don't know the threshold of what crosses the line from "acceptable" into, "we should recall this". If you could enlighten me on this, that would be wonderful. I am just commenting on how I see a news scare every six months or so about the recall of some drug or another (wasn't something called Vioxx or something a big one?) and I wonder how this kind of stuff manages to slip by. Forgive me if I insulted you with my ignorance.
EDIT: yeah here is an article of a judge in australia saying that Vioxx was unfit to sell. http://www.theage.com.au/national/dr...0305-powh.html
Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 01-14-2011 at 11:09.
NP, it's rare there's something I do know something about... I get rather sensitive as I perceive my industry to get more flack than British Aerospace et al who build weaponry for money, and all we do is try to make pills and potions to make people better to make money. Angels? No, we're not. Devils? No, we're not that either.
Like most things in Medicine it's a balancing act between several variables.
Longer trials will probably pick up more adverse events. But it increases the cost of the drug as trials are very expensive
More people in the trials will also pick up more adverse events. But increases the cost of the drug as this increases the cost of the trials.
More groupings (age, race, gender, weight, kidney function, diabetes, cardiovascular disease... I could go on)? Again this would require more people for there to be enough in each group to make it worthwhile.
Indirectly, if more drugs were binned due to this it would further increase the costs of drugs as fewer would make it.
A "signal" in a drugs trial is 3 in 10,000. An arbitrary value - but where does random chance end and adverse reaction start? Difficult to know.
Most drugs also go after-market surveillance every 6 months for 5 years (then yearly). This is how drugs are found to have very low levels of side effects, or side effects in a group of patients who were not directly assessed. If there are worries, then more frequent or targeted surveillance is undertaken.
The other side of the coin is: how many die because a drug is not released? The NNT to NNH ratio? (Not that investigators ever do this by the way). If 10 are needed to save someone who would have died, but 1000 to kill someone who would have lived, one might dispassionately say that is acceptable. But deaths of 1 in 1,000 is a drug recall / catastrophe - even if it saved loads of other people (only the case in areas such as antibiotics or similar).
Most agencies will get clobbered for passing anything that turns out to be harmful, but not rewarded for passing something.
The study was in 2000 - but it was approved in 1999. So at the time of approval neither the company nor the FDA knew about this problem. I agree that a 500% increase in MI risk is a LOT. I am sure that the company's senior Execs were reluctant to let $2.5bn a year walk out the door by recalling (and I would also hasten to add that post-marketing business decisions are a long way from the pre-registration Doctors and Scientists). And so faffed around for a long time. Perhaps they hoped another study would show a lower risk? Who knows?
Edit: Linkey Looks like it's a class effect.
Last edited by rory_20_uk; 01-14-2011 at 13:33.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Hmm, I wonder, do they slacken the restricions on how many survive in a thousand if the drug is only going to be used on an always fatal disease?
There is the Orphan drug designation, and there is some pragmatism in e.g. Oncology - look at the SPC for any oncology drug and the side effects are very long - but you're dead otherwise.
Orphan drugs again hat more lattitude as there's otherwise nothing else. I still don't think there is a view taken that as long as more are saved than killed compared to standard treatment it is allowed.
The interesting thing is that regulations are tightened up all the time - but once you're passed that's it barring disasters, so many old drugs would never have passed today (paracetamol, aspirin to name two).
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Bookmarks