What is GMO?

[Moindreffor]

but I do not share all of your demonstration which maintains a confusion ...

This is by no means a demonstration. I did not try to demonstrate anything ... (it is clear or not this double negation or it says the opposite of what I think ???) In short, I did not try to demonstrate something (like that , it's better !).

I am not trying to convince anyone.

I try to shed light on some concepts, as we understand them, and to look beyond the battles that inevitably generate the "portfolios" (everyone puts what they want; GMO is one; I do not demonstrate anything, I specify the meaning I give to the word). A portmanteau word, everyone puts what they want. One is traveling with fluorescent briefs. The other with a tail coat! From then on, the discussions are endless. And without any interest.

It may not be perfect ,? But without false modesty, I have the impression that it still goes a notch above what I read on average - and which is distressing with confusion!

I testify of what I do - I use hybrids, but rather less; I find the fashion for "ancient vegetables" absurd in many ways; I will without hesitation use the GMO potato from Bayer (although I would have much preferred that INRA still be able to do research and that this pdt variety be in the public domain) ... Etc ...

And you, do what you want! As long as you are happy about it - and that you do not piss off others with Khmer Green terrorism!

excellent the word of suitcase, and as a concept, that sums it up well, I note that in my tablets
on the other hand I prefer leopard briefs which are kangaroo pants, so are they GMO pants

[Ahmed]

Did, you unnecessarily complicate your life: when you write "I didn't try to demonstrate anything ... (is it clear or not this double negation or it says the opposite of what I think ???), it is enough to operate a slight permutation, like this: "I have not tried to demonstrate anything ...".

[Did67]

Thank you!

From time to time, at over 65, I have spontaneous "turns" resulting from the fact that I sometimes think in German (my mother tongue - well its spoken version, Alsatian; French is my first foreign language) . I corrected tons of "Germanism" in my book ...

Added to this is the fact that I'm rewriting my book, 8 to 9 hours a day on my keyboard - sometimes I lose my head a little when I want to relax - finally change my mind - I chat here. .

[Grelinette]

Hello,

In any case, what is positive with this debate (even if it sometimes goes into a "distaff") is that we understand better what we are talking about when we speak of "GMOs". It is once again very informative! (Thanks to the specialists for their explanations ... and to the forum econology! ).

That said, the cleavages do not seem ready to be reduced, but this is understandable in this period of general distrust which starts all over the place.

As far as I am concerned, I admit being often uncomfortable in this type of debate because I share certain opinions of both parties (pro and anti GMOs), and to be honest I have a feeling there are some rearguard battles and "Khmer" behavior on either side!

[Janic]

@lesseffort

you're talking about increasing the number of illnesses by launching figures, taken out of context once again, these figures mean nothing, since everything has to be simplified ... (yes, it's more complicated than 2 +2)

I gladly pass on the mutual exchange of skills, otherwise we will not get out.
In France, there are few official sources on the figures counting such victims of such or such pathologies. The main one is INSERM and previously the INVS replaced by public health. These organizations are not satisfied with raw figures (like those I gave that come from INSERM) but also in terms of percentage of populations, they are not all that bad.

Alzheimer's disease did not manifest itself because people died before anything else, and the more the population increases, the more the number of diseases increases, and the more science progresses the more we diagnose it, so it's stupid as cabbage

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladie_d%27Alzheimer
I know it's not your benchmark, but since you don't have one at all, it's better than nothing.
So your reasoning is partially wrong. Indeed, and there you are right, like all pathologies, the diagnoses are more and more targeted and precise and often multiple for the same death. So for a cancer patient, diabetic, and suffering from cardiac pathology: will his death be preferentially classified as cancer, diabetic or cardiac? But since the invention of the microscope, cancer cells have been recognized and are no longer confusing. However, the cancer / population ratio has also exploded since the beginning of the century and the child population, generally free of this pathology, has also seen the number of children affected explode, which does not correspond to the increase in the population.
Then, certain pathologies like Alzheimer's are better defined as effects (before we would have cataloged them as stupid or crazy, whatever). But giving a name does not decrease or increase the number of overall deaths, we just put them in small boxes. For example alcohol and tobacco are considered to be the cause of around 100.000 deaths from cancer and it is obvious that these are not 100.000 in addition to the 159.000 deaths from cancer; but that suggests that, theoretically, 159.000-100.000 would only make 59.000 dead from this pathology (since you have to simplify everything) and no drug, nuclear or chemical treatment could do the same where from immense interest in an adequate lifestyle ... as with Alzheimer's for that matter.
False in the sense that the comparisons are not made only on a particular population, but by comparison with other populations with different lifestyles such as the black or Hispanic populations in America that I mentioned. If it were linked to age, exclusively, these pathologies would be found identically in other populations and this is not the case. Another example of autism absent among the Amish and frequent for the rest of the American population, etc.
The same reasoning can be used for the increasing number of cases diagnosed as autistic in children and the ratio with the increase in the population does not correspond to the figures observed where we go from 1 for 1.000, for example, to 1 out of 100, then out of 1 out of 59 and it is estimated that it will be 1 for 2 in 2032, i.e. tomorrow

http://www.vaincrelautisme.org/content/ ... ffres-cles

janic wrote: @ did
that would take us too far, but I do not share all of your demonstration which maintains a confusion, but it is what you believe, and which emerges from the common theory which must, to give credibility to this discourse, use very periods , very long (this is the essence of evolution, moreover, but partly questioned by Gould for example and other researchers)

pushpin when you nail your beak, you make us the short version

The long version can be found here
Science-and-Technology / L-evolution-of-cash-biological-and-the-chance-t11282.html
and the one who will nail my beak is not yet born.
If Did interest only , I am willing to dissect point by point what is wrong with his evolutionary approach with only references from other opinions of scientists, evolutionists themselves. But all of that has already been peeled and I think he has other cats to whip.

[izentrop]

Thank you Did for this update which brings everyone agreement ... Uh! almost

We are already bordering more on "genetic manipulation" when we have "polyploidized" a lot of plant species: many of our wheat (even "old"), sugar beets or fodder (old varieties) are polyploid: instead of having 2n chromosome, they have 3n (triploids ), 4n (tetraploids) sometimes 6 n (hexaploids).

Mutagens (such as colchicine) are used. And radiation (Cadarache was a center for agricultural research).

You may be thinking of these giant plants or giant fruits that only mature on an infusion, not even edible, just stupid. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyplo%C3%AFdie#Effets

[Did67]

GMOs, a weapon of mass communication?

This morning, my eyes are dragging on a cereal packaging from a fairly famous brand ...

And here you are not that I read (from memory, I put away): "The farmers made a commitment to ... this, ... that and [b] not to use GMOs"[/ b]

Presented in this way, we say that it is good. And we buy.

Except that, in the case of cereals, there is no GMO on the market. And if there were, since it is a European production, the cultivation of GMOs is prohibited.

So they did not commit TO NOTHING ! But that is not a seller.

But we put it forward because we know that GMOs have been demonized in public debate, it will sell. Ignorance as a fertile ground for marketing! It is not new. But it continues with that!

[Janic]

@did 67

janic wrote: but I do not share all of your demonstration which maintains a confusion ...

This is by no means a demonstration. I did not try to demonstrate anything ... (it is clear or not this double negation or it says the opposite of what I think ???) In short, I did not try to demonstrate something (like that , it's better !).

I did not, in fact, use the right term! It would have been better if I had used the explanatory one.

I am not trying to convince anyone.

The problem for each of us, of which I am obviously a member, is to think that when we speak it is not to convince but only to explain. But explaining without wanting to convince at the same time is only an illusion of the mind.
Your new "media" position as a speaker and author inevitably leads to becoming one of those influencers who seek, despite everything, to convince the curious as well as the skeptics.

It may not be perfect ,? But without false modesty, I have the impression that it still goes a notch above what I read on average - and which is distressing with confusion!

in my area of ​​intervention on this site, I have the same feeling

And you, do what you want! As long as you are happy - and that you don't piss off others with Khmer Green terrorism !

I hope it is only fatigue that makes you express yourself like this!
So what me shocking, but I have read many others, it is this term of green, blue, black or rainbow kmers. I doubt that the green kmers have caused thousands of deaths with the methods used by real kmers.
When I compare medical totalitarianism or medical Nazism, I am entitled to a shield and Godwin points, but this use of Khmer does not bother anyone, it's just lamentable!
http://lelab.europe1.fr/khmer-vert-l-in ... -ecolo-159

And here you are not that I read (from memory, I put away): "The farmers are committed to ... this, ... that and not to use GMOs "

can you indicate the references of this brand? Advertisers are generally not specialists in biology, it would not be the first time for that matter! On the other hand, these GMO agricultural products are legally authorized for import and use for animal foods and therefore for human purposes, and that is what matters.

[Did67]

Your new “media” position as a speaker, as an author inevitably leads to becoming one of those influencers who nonetheless seek to convince the skeptics.

This is absolutely true. And explicit. I am trying to convince as many people as possible, and in particular physically handicapped people, that it is possible to produce a lot of vegetables, more than organic, without working the soil.

It is even, and I claim it, my last political struggle. In any case my last activism.

For this, I deploy my knowledge, my "talents" as a speaker and writer. My videos. I welcome home. I fire everything.

It's very clear.

By the way, on this forum in particular, I give my opinion, as a citizen - on yellow vests, on the carbon tax, on GMOs, on pellets ... In short, certain subjects which as a citizen interests me.

I admit that on GMOs, we are at the border of my vegetable patch and the citizen debate ... I had necessarily thought about this in relation to my conferences: sometimes, people ask me the question ... In my mind , I just wanted to add a grain of salt. Give my opinion. Without trying to convince. But I understand that you could have received it as activism.

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
Your new “media” position as a speaker, as an author inevitably leads to becoming one of those influencers who nonetheless seek to convince the skeptics.

This is absolutely true. And explicit. I am trying to convince as many people as possible, and in particular physically handicapped people, that it is possible to produce a lot of vegetables, more than organic, without working the soil.
It is even, and I claim it, my last political struggle. In any case my last activism.
For this, I deploy my knowledge, my "talents" as a speaker and writer. My videos. I welcome home. I fire everything.
It's very clear.

It was not a reproach, but just an observation! I find myself completely in the same approach (on other subjects) I also wrote some works, on health, on theology and made some conferences on these subjects.

In my mind, I just wanted to add a grain of salt. Give my opinion. Without trying to convince. But I understand that you could have received it as activism.

I am in favor of activism so it doesn't shock me, on the contrary, what shocked me was the use of green Khmer