Said the person trying to spread FUD over labelling.
The original goal of the GMO producers were to create herbizide tolerant and insect resistant plants. This worked well in the first step, but nature has itâs own way and after 10-20 years created âsuperweeds and superbugsâ. Monsatoâs response was to spray the old herbizides and insectizides again, together with Roundup. But this is not a zero sum game, itâs a game where Monsanto & Co wins big time by selling patented seeds and chemicals to farmers who
- have to recalculate the tradeof (higher costs vs. potential loss in yields)
- have to think about what happens in the next 10-20 years, when the next generation of superbugs/-weeds need to be dealt with
This also means that GMO producers must invest again in new gene modifications, which may be made ineffective by nature every 20 years or so and may have new unintended effects.
While we have been force fed the last generation of GMO plants (without proper labeling we have not much of a chance to avoid them), we should at least make sure that the same doesnât happen with the next generation.
Agreed, there is no clear evidence that GMO plants have short term negative effects on humans. The botched âstudiesâ of anti-GMO activist-scientists were just as bad as the dismissive attitude of Monsanto & Co regarding potential risks. There is obviously no agreement about the long term effects on humans. This study would have to cover at least 2 generations of humans and is clearly not in the interest of the GMO manufacturers, because their patents would be invalid before the study was concluded.
Not only the long term effects on humans must be considered, but also effects on soil, usefull bugs, wildlife and many more unintended effects from gene manipulation.
We basically have no clue what these unintended effects are and will be. The Monsanto types and their shills donât want to know either. The fact that noone keeled over 5 minutes or 3 months after eating GMO food is only proof that itâs not directly and immediately toxic enough to kill us on the spot. But it may be toxic enough and/or altering our human genome so that it may kill our grandchildren. We donât know that yet. So we blissfully steer to new genetic borders, not knowing if thereâs a little genetic storm on the way that will sink us.
I say, by all means, invent this stuff, test it under safe and controlled conditions, let us all know what works well and what doesnât, BUT donât shove it down my throat because someone claims his right to make a few billion bucks is more important than my health (and that of my grandchildren).
http://www.natureinstitute.org/nontarget/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto's_Roundup_Ready_Controversy
2 Likes
Everything in nature involves shuffling genes around, if you look at it long enough. Mutation and cross breeding also happens naturally. Iâd draw the line when measures are taken that cannot occur in nature (e.g. unnatural high radiation levels); then it should be tested for itâs long term effects as well as GMO plants should be tested for their long term effects.
Natural mutation and cross/selective breeding results are only tested for their short term effects, which is OK IMO, because they are only distributed locally (in a region/country) and not spread around the world and forced upon people. Possible negative long term effects would be limited.
1 Like
Wow, Lutz.
You do know that conventional (that is, non GMO) crops are the result of ânatural mutaiton and cross/selective breedingâ and are spread around the world in exactly the same way that GMO crops are? Right?
No they arenât. Thatâs why the anti-GMO crew makes the argument about biodiversity. Especially cross/selective breeding traditionally optimizes seeds for a specific region and their specific environmental conditions. Thatâs why e.g. spanish farmers in the Philippines failed with their imported seeds. After they improved them to local conditions, they didnât send these new variants back to Spain because it obviously doesnât make sense.
A major problem in Asia is land ownership. Unlike in Europe and North America (at least until mid of the 20th century), where small and middle sized farmers took care of their own land and crops, were rather interested in long term profits and effects and increased knowledge about farming, Asia has mainly big land owners. These super-landlords rent the parcels to landless farmers on a year by year basis. The land owners are like bankers only interested in the rent and have little knowledge about farming. The farmers/labourers have no education and have no chance to build experience because they can be ousted from their parcel any time. With exploding populations in Asia the governments were swept up in the arms of Monsanto & Co, who claim to have the experience and the solution for everything. Europe and N.A. still has plenty of farmers with their own land (although they are dieing out), thus they know how to optimize their crops without the help of big biotech.
2 Likes
Thatâs the entire problem, though. As long as there is no labeling, it is incredibly hard to study populations that have consumed or been exposed to GMOs by comparing them to populations that havenât. And such studies are the only way to do many kinds of real science - population studies over time are the only way to detect a great many issues. I literally do not know if I have consumed GMOs, and nobody can really prove the absence of consumption of them at this point due to the exemption from fair labeling that they enjoy.
I suspect that GMO advocates who oppose labeling quite firmly believe that GMOs are extremely harmful to small segments of the population over time. Thatâs the most obvious reason to oppose labeling, says William of Occam, and after all many non-GMOs are harmful to small segments of the population. The same tactic of sabotaging science through regulatory capture was used by Standard Ethyl corporation and by the fanatic arm of the gun lobby. (In both those cases, they only did it because they knew the data would show things they didnât want the public to know about.)
Anybody that is an advocate of both GMOs and labeling is probably intellectually honest and ethical (not saying right or wrong - thatâs not the issue). Anybody that strongly opposes labeling is trying to hide data from scientists - most likely for economic reasons. There is no valid scientific reason to oppose labeling, and extremely strong scientific reason to support it. Science requires information to function.
As for the point being moot, thatâs certainly true at this point. But we can change that. A fair labeling law, palatable to GMO advocates (non-shill type) and GMO opponents (non-loony type) would allow real science to be performed on any new GMOs developed after the labeling is mandated, and would let older GMOs be studied in remote areas that havenât yet been exposed to them.
As long as there is no labeling, youâve eliminated most of the best ways to learn if thereâs any real difference between GMO and nonGMO foods. Opposition to labeling is extremely suspicious for this reason alone, even if you ignore the social and economic reasons for labeling. Why does science need to be crippled in the name of Monsantoâs profit margin?
3 Likes
The anti-GMO activists are increasingly overlapping with the Agenda 21, chemtrails, anti-vaxxer crowd. Some of them are now starting to claim that GMOs cause autism.
No doubt thereâs extremists on any topic, but once again, maybe focus less on âactivistsâ and extremists and more on the majority of average people that simply want to know more about GMO industry research before accepting it.
I think most people (who arenât extremists on either side) can find a middle ground on the issue and thatâs the fact that there needs to be more disclosure and transparency of the industryâs GMO research.
Most rational people can agree on that and many pro-GMO people (who arenât extremists) concede that thereâs not enough research transparency. Like I said, it would both help to allay potentially unfounded fears and (if nothing is being hidden by industry) also get the ball rolling on more public acceptance of GMOs. Thatâs a potential win-win scenario for everyone involved instead of all the squabbling thatâs going on and holding up the process.
2 Likes
Which is what happens with the insecticides also, except that insecticides kill thousands of people around the world every year.
Iâm mixed on GMO. I donât particularly worry about it in the stuff I eat⌠I think the process is a good thing, potentially a very good thing, but I donât trust any company that puts profit (and particularly short term profit) first to do it and continue to do it once. So I support regulations and testing on new stuff they put out by an independent party. I support labeling (although, considering how ubiquitous GMO stuff is, to the point that virtually everything would have that label, if itâs just a simple âyes/noâ label, Iâm not sure why the people who are lobbying for it donât simply create a âGMO-freeâ label that they can use for the exceptions⌠but then again at the same time, Iâd also support specific and extensive GMO labeling instructions that details specifically WHICH modified strains are involved in any product, all in the name of informed choice, so we can decide âthis particular product seems to have been well tested so I can accept that, but I donât trust this one and the company that owns it is kind of a bag of $@!#.â). But I think people who reject GMO foods outright are a little like anti-vaxxers. I admire this girl for her convictions and eloquence and standing up to OâLeary, and agree with her on some points I think sheâs personally strayed a step or two too far into the anti-science part of the camp (but on the other hand, give her props for conceding that others should be able to make a different choice).
All that said, I canât stand Kevin OâLeary, the man whoâs made a brand out of caring about money and nothing else. I actually occasionally watch the Lang and OâLeary Exchange⌠but mostly when I know heâs NOT on it.
And of course, Greenpeace seems to be some sort of money making political ratfuck organization, so donât leave them out.
I wonder if they are on the list of NPOâs that reveal almost nothing about their finances?
Except when the anti-GMO people complain about âextremistsâ and âshillsâ they are specifically talking about people who actually know stuff, because the only people that oppose them are in it for the money.
We see lie repeated time after time, manipulative language, overt generalizations
Similar with some pro-GMO extremists⌠time after time. But, once again, itâs beside the overall point. Theyâre in the minority.
We see lie repeated time after time, manipulative language, overt generalizations and destroyed GM crops, and you donât see why I compare certain GM activists to anti vaccinists? Hell, this very same article talks about yields not being better, when in some documented cases it is better.
The problem is, you havenât always made the distinction in this thread that you were only referring to âcertain GM activistsâ. You kept using a broad brush along with putting too much focus on extremists instead of the average, concerned citizen that wants more open research on GMOs. Like I said, I think itâs counterproductive to keep pointing to extremes and insulting average people if you want more acceptance of GMOâs.
If someone in this thread starts saying that GMOâs are causing explosive farts, then address it. Otherwise, youâre just spinning your wheels and insulting the intelligence of the people choosing to participate in this thread.
In my personal experience, any admission of potential risk and caution is used by some dishonest people to claim that there is real, proven danger.
Once again, donât worry about it. Letâs just be honest about things and let the chips fall where they may. Activists or anyone else with a pre-determined mindset shouldnât be a part of this equation.
Climate change deniers distort valid climate science all the time. But, most climate scientists put up with it and remain transparent and allow the science to speak for itself. Otherwise, it only helps denialists claim thereâs a hidden âconspiracyâ.
For example, the problem with the fake âclimategateâ was that certain scientists used your same line of reasoning to be less opaque and it was turned into a manufactured controversy by denialists. The scientists were concerned that some info (that only appeared to conflict with climate change science) wouldnât be understood and itâd be exploited by denialists. Instead, the denialists ended up exploiting the lack of transparency itself. Itâs not the job of scientists to worry about what extremists do with their data, they just need to continue to be open and allow the facts to speak for themselves.
Thatâs why I am in favor of labeling and more transparence, even if I am hesitant.
Well, then I wish I hadnât written all that shit above before reading this part! hehâŚ
My point is that publicly funded research in GM would be vulnerable to political pressure, so it might be difficult to achieve relevant results with scarce funds.
Thereâs pressure no matter how you fund research. Itâs a human condition. I personally prefer political pressure over outright self-serving industry pressure, but I definitely can see the benefits of having both instead of one or the other.
As far as funding goes, thatâs my point. There needs to be more federal funding for truly independent GMO research, not less⌠that is, if everyone wants to get this issue resolved (or at least progress). Combine that with also making industry research much more transparent, then we can finally get somewhere.
If it wasnât for all the lack of independent research and more open industry research, there would be far more support for GMO products. Until that happens, weâre all just going to keep spinning our wheels. If one supports GMO and wants to see its adoption help the world, then itâs a very good idea to support all of the above.
I am really tired of being nice to nutjobs and liars.
I certainly feel the same way about industry shills and anyone else who is full of shit, but I also have to watch out because jumping on that anger-bandwagon can end up doing more harm than good overall. For example, earlier in this thread, I hastily accused someone of using a single purpose account and I was wrong. That didnât help anything.
Like I said, if someone in this thread spouts that GMOâs are causing autism, then address it. If not, then donât try to throw that shit on everyone else by implication or guilt by association. Itâll just backfire on you. Let my mistakes serve as a warning to others. HahahaâŚ
Yes, label them, disclose as much info as possible, but at the end of the day lot of whatâs going on here is delusion, paranoia. Not for everybody of course, but letâs not deny that these people exist.
I disagree that the extent of âdelusionâ and âparanioaâ driving the debate is as significant as you portray. I think itâs easy to focus on extremist positions that drown out all the many more people that are simply concerned and want more GMO industry research transparency (and/or more independent research).
Most recent polls show that the majority of the public isnât sure what to think of GMOs just yet, while a smaller precentage think they are unsafe. Only ~35% of the public suspect GMOs are unsafe (to varying degrees). The rest either think theyâre safe or just want to see more research. Why not focus on them instead of the even smaller percentage that thinks GMOâs are brought to Earth by lizard people? Itâs counterproductive.
Only my personal experience of 13 years debating ⌠in most online debates people argues as if GMOs are a monolithic tech irreversibly linked to Monsanto ⌠all I get is MONSANTO IS EVIL!!! GENE PATENTS!!! and thatâs it.
Then youâre not including this thread or many others Iâve seen. Itâs far more nuanced than your exaggerated distortion there belies. Once again, I think youâre focusing too much on extremes and pushing aside the majority that just wants more open research, etc. Also, âSCREAMING!!11â like that to represent others? Itâs counterproductive.
I think youâre focusing more on people who piss you off in all those past threads above the many others that take a more moderate approach. Granted, I tend to do that same thing, but Iâm an idiot. Let me serve as a warning to you. Youâre better than this⌠youâre better than a raving cow.
I try to write about the subject, and I am currently trying to make biotech a little bit more accessible and less mysterious, but itâs a longshot.
Thatâs very cool and I hope you continue to do so. To me, thatâs not the long shot, itâs the best route to go and youâre doing a service to the community to boot. On the udder hand, the real long shot is thinking youâll convince people to listen to reason if you accidentally keep inferring to them as delusional, etc. when using broad-stroked insults.
The people that claim GMOs are a plot of the lizard people, etc. only hurt themselves and are in the minority. I wouldnât focus on them too much (not to mention that some of them are going to be industry shills only pretending to be crazy).
That negative focus keeps you from seeing all the other people that are willing to listen to reason (minus the insults) and would enjoy being educated by your writings. If you focus more on that moderate majority who is willing to learn and less on the extreme minority, I think youâll probably feel more rewarded and less frustrated as well.
Except when the anti-GMO people complain about âextremistsâ and âshillsâ they are specifically talking about people who actually know stuff, because the only people that oppose them are in it for the money.
Sure, when that happens everyone loses.
Thereâs always an anti-GMO person saying âWell hereâs a link, haha!â Unfortunately many times the articles have nothing to do with GMO plants, or the results contradict what the poster claim, or (often) just conspiracy stuff. If thereâs evidence, it really should not be that hard to find and cite.
I donât actually know very much about Greenpeace, Iâm afraid, including their stance on GMOs, if they have one.
I wouldnât be at all surprised if they took an extremist position, though.
Lutz said:
NonTarget â The Nature Institute
Monsanto's Roundup Ready Controversy - SourceWatch
Preston Sturges said: Unfortunately many times the articles have nothing to do with GMO plants, or the results contradict what the poster claim, or (often) just conpiracy stuff. If thereâs evidence, it really should not be that hard to find.
Well, then it should also be easy for you to specifically show where those links contradict what that poster claimed and is conspiracy stuff, etc.
I looked at the first link, and I didnât find that it referred to (or internally linked to) anything that particularly contradicted @Lutz . Of course, âconspiracy stuffâ is often in the eye of the beholder, but I didnât see anything of that nature either (but its external links may be another story).
It does get a bit philosophical at some links like here, but it didnât seem to promote any conspiracy theories, etc. and it was incredibly well-sourced (scroll to bottom of page). Once again, I do see the site has very philosophical approaches to stuff, but not to the extremes you seem to portray. Theyâre biased, thatâs for sure, but Iâd rather look at the facts they present and how they interpret them than to dismiss them altogether. Whatâs your specific problem with it again?
The second link from sourcewatch doesnât appear to contradict Lutz either and is very well-sourced. Whatâs your specific problem with it? With that many sources, Iâm sure you can find an issue somewhere, but you havenât bothered while ironically making claims against it.
You also inferred that the links have nothing to do with GMO plants. They both did. Did you not read the content of the links?
2 Likes
I donât actually know very much about Greenpeace, Iâm afraid, including their stance on GMOs, if they have one.
âGMOs should not be released into the environment since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health. We advocate immediate interim measures such as labelling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones. We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes âŚâ
1 Like
Thanks, Cowicide. I agree with the specific âintermediate interim measuresâ as quoted, although not necessarily with anything else theyâve done or said.
Thereâs a third site that is supposed to be the definitive collection of GMO research papers, but a quick review showed many of the papers were off topic. I didnât save that link, but Iâm sure Iâll see it again.
The sourcewatch site was just trash, maybe thereâs some good bits in there, but itâs not my job to sift it from the hoaxes and conspiracy theoriesâŚ
Itâs not a big puzzle, all thatâs needed is âThis paper proves that X causes Y (citation) and it has stood up to public examination.â
We already have more than enough of this âHereâs a link to bunch of garbage containing links to more garbage containing links to more garbage containing links to some stuff thatâs not garbage but completely irrelevant.â
If someone tried that on an undergraduate term paper, what grade would they get? I donât think itâs being abusive to ask for standards comparable to those that would apply to a term paper, but that is nowhere in the mix at the moment.
Not at all. GMO means that genes which do not occur naturally in a species have been inserted into its DNA. GMO and hybridization are simply not the same thing. This isnât about strains. This is about injecting totally foreign DNA in a way that could never occur outside the lab.
1 Like
