frauenfelder at August 13th, 2013 15:54 — #1
mcwyrm at August 13th, 2013 16:02 — #2
...people have a basic right to know what’s in our food...
Ffft. You know what's in GMO corn? Corn. You know what's in GMO soy? Soy.
osguido at August 13th, 2013 16:02 — #3
She then highlighted the most basic facts for O'Leary: genetically engineered crops don’t actually out-produce organic crops,
This is factually wrong.
Indeed, in some varieties and GM crops, organics perform better. But in crops like ringspot virus-resistant papayas, this is simply wrong. Very, very wrong. Papaya plants not affected by the vrius outperform wild types several times.
This is a complex, delicate subject, please let's stay away from extreme simplifications and too general statements that are close to meaningless.
lordinsidious at August 13th, 2013 16:13 — #4
So why do the GMO if it's the same thing?
mcwyrm at August 13th, 2013 16:19 — #5
Ask a farmer ... also, why do the non-GMO if it's the same thing?
madopal at August 13th, 2013 16:20 — #6
At the end of the day, I think this is more about method than message. Is some of what she's saying not correct? Sure. You can argue that. What you can't argue is that the talking head debating her is having circles run around him by a 14-year-old girl who won't take his logical fallacies.
I have never seen a more blatant attempt at just changing the subject to score points. She doesn't believe in GMO crops, but she doesn't state that she thinks they should be stopped. She believes they should be labeled, and yet, the host repeatedly attacks her with such appeals to emotion as "what do you say to a child your age who is going to die?"
It was great to watch these methods fail so miserably against a kid. Speaks volumes to the level of discourse, and this is CANADA. The US level is so much below this it's not even funny. Bill O'Reilly would have yelled at her and cut off her mic.
So, ultimately, she gets a 5/10 for facts but a 10/10 for debate & logic. At least she didn't resort to "when are you going to stop beating your wife" tactics.
chenille at August 13th, 2013 16:25 — #7
You know what's in GMO corn and soy? Corn and soy, plus a few additional proteins one would not expect to find in them without such technology; a variant EPSPS from Agrobacterium is a popular example. That is after all the whole reason people are interested in them. Would it really be so bad to acknowledge that, the way we mention citric acid or trisodium phosphate in other foods?
mcwyrm at August 13th, 2013 16:26 — #8
Are you suggesting we note every novel protein in every new crop variety?
lordinsidious at August 13th, 2013 16:31 — #9
I'm not saying GMO is the same thing, far from it. Let me help your original post:
"Ffft. You know what's in GMO corn? Corn and some stuff people with PHDs understand. You know what's in GMO soy? Soy and some stuff people with PHDs understand.
You're welcome. "
steampunkbanana at August 13th, 2013 16:32 — #10
Her argument seems to be that there should be labeling and long-term testing. He then dismisses her argument by drilling her on how far she wants to go with her "crazy anti-everything nuttiness."
jessewardclark at August 13th, 2013 16:32 — #11
"Are you against modifying food at all?" [nods her head]... "I know this sounds radical but yes I am against genetically modified food." I disagree with you in thinking that she doesn't feel GMOs should be stopped This is the basis of her stance. Sure she falls back on labeling, but I don't see at all where he was out of line bringing up possible negative side effects of the discontinuation of GMOs.
phasmafelis at August 13th, 2013 16:34 — #12
Granny Smith apples are better for pies, Fuji apples are better for eating. They're both made out of apples.
GMO corn being better adapted to a certain need does not make it stop being corn.
madopal at August 13th, 2013 16:35 — #13
Later stupid attempts by O'Leary:
- You don't like accepting the safety of GMOs based on tests done by parties with financial interests in approving GMOs, why are you anti-science?
- I hate to see kids form their own opinions. You can just get older and see more of the issues, coming to my wise decisions which I'm too important to actually lay out, because reasons.
And she swatted them all down. 14-year-owned.
madopal at August 13th, 2013 16:37 — #14
He wasn't out of line for the topic, more for his crappy approach. But his "Why are you wanting to condemn kids your age to death" was pure appeal-to-emotion. He wasn't into specifics when she started challenging him on golden rice...he ran screaming from that. He was like a boxer who ducks away at the first sign of contact, hoping to win by mugging to the judges.
The second she started to even discuss whether his example was pertinent, he backed off, then basically came right back with the "why do you want kids dead?" It was LAUGHABLE.
sme at August 13th, 2013 16:40 — #15
When we do research involving human subjects, we're required to obtain informed consent. That means the subjects have to understand what the research is for, what the risks are, and agree to participate under those circumstances. It's really hard for me to understand how anyone with an ounce of ethics can argue against labelling GMO foods, so that people can chose to opt out of the global experiment on our food supply if they wish.
mcwyrm at August 13th, 2013 16:41 — #16
Similarly, I suppose, you imagine that conventional plant breeders are doing research involving human subjects when they develop and release new crops?
greenberger at August 13th, 2013 16:43 — #17
Holy shit, what an absolute moron this guy is! Not that his co-host was much better ("are you anti-science?") but at least she was nicer. Most people at 40 can't argue as eloquently as this girl can at 14. Could O'Leary come off as any more of a dim-wit? I don't think so!
Why are so many people scared by the idea that we should label things? Regardless of what side of the issue you stand on. You really don't want to know what's inside? I know, let's do away with the ingredient list altogether on packages. All I need on my cereal box is the word "Cereal" and I'm good, thanks.
lorq at August 13th, 2013 16:45 — #18
In other words, you have no answer to LordInsidious's question.
chenille at August 13th, 2013 16:45 — #19
No. How about simply the ones that don't fall under the normal range of protein mutants you might expect from soy or corn, or just noting them as 'with microbial proteins'? The way we mention citric acid as an ingredient when we specifically add some, but not when the food produces it on its own?
Why is it so important to pretend the technology doesn't accomplish anything unusual, when we all know that's what's beneficial in the first place? Because even as someone who thinks GM is generally safe when well-studied and regulated, the tendency of so many supporters to try to pretend it does nothing at all makes me feel very uneasy. Do you guys not see why that's alienating rather than reassuring?
lorq at August 13th, 2013 16:46 — #20
Sounds like a good idea. Thanks for suggesting it.
next page →