GMOs and DNA changing viruses and bacteria

I'm aware of what Monsanto does. I don't see how they're linked to the bees dying though.

It's fairly simple:

Biologists have found more than 150 different chemical residues in bee pollen, a deadly “pesticide cocktail” according to University of California apiculturist Eric Mussen. The chemical companies Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, Dow, DuPont and Monsanto shrug their shoulders at the systemic complexity, as if the mystery were too complicated. They advocate no change in pesticide policy. After all, selling poisons to the world’s farmers is profitable.

They don't want to change their ways despite their ways being detrimental to the environment.

Sorry I should of rephrased that.

"I'm aware of what Monsanto does. I don't see how they're linked to the bees dying though." + its relevance to GMOs.

What you're talking about @colinengland is bad farming practice. GM tech is not responsible for such use. If anything it has helped the burden by reducing the amount of pesticide use.
http://www.acsh.org/news/2014/11/06/meta-analysis-shows-gm-crops-reduce-pesticide-use-37-percent

Bad farming practice happens here to a degree too. I have done work on Auditing such sprays to make sure they don't effect the bees on site. Sure the Americans are lagging in this aspect but they don't ignore this issue. Once again this isn't relevant to the use of GM tech.

i study Molecular Biology, not officially but privately at my own cost. for over 8 years i've been designing proteins via the University of Washington / Baker Labs. Using fold.it app. I co founded one of the top teams in the field. i have seen a lot of virus and bacteria proteins over that time. worked on h1n1, ebola and hundreds more etc etc. If any biologist believes that genetically modified plants or otherwise are ok, i think they are deluded. Sure something might be ok, but nature has to be able to break down the "man made" component somewhere in the system. I dont any man, that can create a stand alone living object without copying some part of that from nature and embedding it back into some cellular system already found in nature. So I say, NO, DO not bring anything into new zealand that could cross pollinate our precious native fauna and flora. as smart as the people are that design such genetically modified things, they do not have an understanding on the whole system used to recycle these things. we should apply a natural law on all our products. do not manufacture anything of the sorts. introducing these genetically modified things into our environment gives things like viruses and bacteria the ability to mutate or develop new ways of evolving to transfer themselves easier and wider than before. these things are smart, not dumb. the effects may not be seen immediatly but for sure in the future, if our bodies have absorbed or cannot cleanse these things (gmo) then we store them and we start having effects or diseases emerge like alzheimers or dementia becasue of the build up within our sensitive living system. even Darwin said introduced species would ruin new zealand and he was right, we shoudl treasure our native environment and protect it at all costs. we dont need am2201 when we have natural plants that dont overdose our peoples bodies so .. lets deal with the pests we have already, that change our dna without morals or ethics. While we are not legally allowed to change our dna back to before it was infected by these things. can any biologist put their life on their gmo products or chemicals ? no, even we cannot find the matrix grid to create a new tree, that flowers, grows fruit, seeds that propagate themselves and filters minerals and things to survive within the law the universe has given us (or to restrict us) so no to glysophate and things that kill the natural living things within our soil or atmosphere... sorry for my english and grammer.

Thank you for this very informative post @mathewinnes

ive been watching the pharma and us governments operation around this and their whole country right now is gearing up to control this topic. (the drive and funding has been very interesting and what they are investing in. ) im speaking pre trump, although the wheels are already in motion and they are taking the rights off designers and giving them to tppa industry... kinda like, saying to you, everything you write using microsoft word, belongs to microsoft. maybe bad example, but at some stage i would like to talk with you. respectfully, Renton Innes

Okay a bit to get through here but I'll do my best :)

Sure something might be ok, but nature has to be able to break down the "man made" component somewhere in the system.

Are you talking strictly in a philosophical sense here?

So I say, NO, DO not bring anything into new zealand that could cross pollinate our precious native fauna and flora. as smart as the people are that design such genetically modified things, they do not have an understanding on the whole system used to recycle these things.

Two things here. I'm not sure if you understand pollination and how it works, things are a bit more complex than that. Plants to cross pollinate from different species does happen but requires a close relative which our native fauna would not fall into for commercial applications.

The other is 15-20 years go into developing a new cultivar which looks into the bigger questions like this. There is a large amount of regulation in the states that requires decades of research. What do you mean recycle these things?

introducing these genetically modified things into our environment gives things like viruses and bacteria the ability to mutate or develop new ways of evolving to transfer themselves easier and wider than before.

Once again I don't think you understand the tech like CRISPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR

We have genetically modified organisms in NZ already, kumara.

Where did you get this position from? I don't think its scientifically valid.

these things are smart, not dumb. the effects may not be seen immediatly but for sure in the future, if our bodies have absorbed or cannot cleanse these things (gmo) then we store them and we start having effects or diseases emerge like alzheimers or dementia becasue of the build up within our sensitive living system.

This is a broad misunderstanding of what and how GM tech works... Are you saying GM organisms carry something poisonous within them or something?

even Darwin said introduced species would ruin new zealand and he was right, we shoudl treasure our native environment and protect it at all costs.

This is not directly related to GM tech and this tool can actually be of use to protect our native species and has been done before to protect our species. (But wasn't entirely considered GM because they only changed 1BP.)

While we are not legally allowed to change our dna back to before it was infected by these things. can any biologist put their life on their gmo products or chemicals ? no, even we cannot find the matrix grid to create a new tree, that flowers, grows fruit, seeds that propagate themselves and filters minerals and things to survive within the law the universe has given us (or to restrict us) so no to glysophate and things that kill the natural living things within our soil or atmosphere... sorry for my english and grammer.

This is a naturalist fallacy which I don't buy. We already use Glyphosate in NZ btw.
Are you saying GM food genetically change our own DNA? Cause the science says no on that.

GM is a tool which we should use alongside the others we currently use. As a primary producer for many things we are loosing our competitive edge by banning something for no good reason whatsoever. There are no health risks, GMO food isn't inherently poisonous in anyway.

I apologize if I come across as abrasive here I do not intend it to be, but I do think your position is made from misinformation/misunderstandings. Could you provide me with some sources to read if I'm missing something?

As a primary producer for many things we are loosing our competitive edge by banning something for no good reason whatsoever.

We'll only remain a primary producer if we want to remain poor. Diversification away from farming is what we need to do.

If we remain as farmers (which we're not actually doing) then we will lose our competitive edge even if we allowed GM crops because we're too far away from any market.

We'll only remain a primary producer if we want to remain poor. Diversification away from farming is what we need to do.

Well currently is our largest exports... and sure I never said we should invest everything in it... thats not my position...?

If we remain as farmers (which we're not actually doing) then we will lose our competitive edge even if we allowed GM crops because we're too far away from any market.

Too far away? Say that to dairy, lamb, beef, wine and kiwifruit. We trade half way across the globe for most things and it makes us the most in exports.

Well currently is our largest exports

True but on a per person basis I believe our tech sector does far better, i.e, more productive.

Too far away?

Yep, once others are as efficient as us (and they will - we're not special) then distance becomes the major factor in price at the retailer.

Yep, once others are as efficient as us (and they will - we're not special) then distance becomes the major factor in price at the retailer.

Our primary goods are not sold because we're cheaper. They're sold because we produce high quality goods. I work with primary industries, they're all growing well. I'm not arguing against diversification, I just think its silly to ban a tool that there is no real downside to.