Stop Bashing GMO Food, Say 109 Nobel Laureates (nytimes.com) 470
The New York Times reports:
More than 100 Nobel laureates have a message for Greenpeace: Quit the G.M.O.-bashing. Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C...
"Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production," the group of laureates wrote. "There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."
Slashdot reader ArmoredDragon writes: As an echo to that comment, one of the key benefits of GMO is increased crop yield, which means a reduced need for deforestation to make way for farmland. GMO food such as Golden Rice, which improves the micronutrient content of rice, and Low Acrylamide Spuds, which are potatoes engineered to have reduced carcinogen content compared to their natural counterparts, can possibly solve many health problems that are inherent with consuming non-GMO produce. And for those concerned about patent-related issues, many of these patents have recently expired, which means anybody can freely grow them and sell the seeds without the need to pay any royalties.
"Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production," the group of laureates wrote. "There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."
Slashdot reader ArmoredDragon writes: As an echo to that comment, one of the key benefits of GMO is increased crop yield, which means a reduced need for deforestation to make way for farmland. GMO food such as Golden Rice, which improves the micronutrient content of rice, and Low Acrylamide Spuds, which are potatoes engineered to have reduced carcinogen content compared to their natural counterparts, can possibly solve many health problems that are inherent with consuming non-GMO produce. And for those concerned about patent-related issues, many of these patents have recently expired, which means anybody can freely grow them and sell the seeds without the need to pay any royalties.
Quit it already! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quit it already! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quit it already! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you even read thhe summary? Hint: look at the last sentence.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
what? Now we can grow round up ready corn for free? I personally wouldnt want the round up in my water and now we have the superweeds that don't respond anyways. Now those questionable genes are out there to pollute the corn. Do those genes without the roundup provide added fitness considering the way they were added? Do you know why the Svalbard Global Seed Vault exists or who runs it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The better solution is to not allow the patenting and copyright of what would otherwise be unprocessed food. Biological processes are too random to allow it to be under such control. You can copyright/patent the process, but not the product once it is out in the wild, "contaminating" everything around.
Apples are a 2000 year old food, clones from grafting. 25 years is a short time. Let's wait a few generations to see what mutates before we decide it is unequivocally harmless.
GMO safe if done responsibly (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be better for the society to agree on some kind of international legal and financial framework that would fund public research in GMOs?
This I think is the key to the problem. GMO technology could do bad things if it is not handled responsibly and in today's world the only thing you can trust large corporations to do is to look after their short term financial interests even, stupidly, when that damages their long term interests...and before you come up with counter examples just remember that the CEO can change so even if a company is ethical now there are no guarantees for tomorrow.
I would absolutely trust the work done by publicly fu
Re:GMO safe if done responsibly (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't it be better for the society to agree on some kind of international legal and financial framework that would fund public research in GMOs?
It would be awesome. Throw in cancer research and fighting AIDS. Now that we all know what's on the wishlist, do you have a plan to make this happen, given the huge success rate of international cooperation?
Re:Quit it already! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tight corporate IP control and the potential for homogeneity in the food supply are both valid concerns wrt/ GMO food. But aside from the occasional, non-specific, and inarticulate rant of "Monsanto is teh evilz!"; a very tiny minority of the anti-GMO crowd addresses either of those issues.
Instead, it's nearly all incoherent rants about how "frankenfood" is not what "mother nature" intended for us to eat. They don't cite scientific research to support their arguments, they cite "alternative medicine" websites and some random person's blog. They don't use dispassionate reason and peer review, they use scare tactics and heartstrings. Sorry. But these are not the sort of people with whom I care to have any sort of conversation.
We can solve the corporate control problem with patent reform. Drop them back to the original term of 14 years, close the "change one minor thing and re-patent" loophole, and make damn sure they STAY at 14 years and don't let them ever become renewable or extended and grow out of control like copyright has. Frankly, I don't begrudge a business a 14-year monopoly on "super rice" or "Roundup Ready" whatever... Or, for that matter, a song or a movie, 14 years would be perfectly fine and respectable for copyright too... so long as everything did truly enter the public domain at the end of that term.
The problem of very productive GMOs encouraging homogeneity in the food supply would be a bit harder and would require more nuance, and possibly regulation, to solve. But I'm sure if we disregard the scaremongers and consider things reasonably; we could work the problem and figure a solution.
Re: Quit it already! (Score:2)
There has always been a homogeneity problem. Well before GMO. One has little to with the other. Look at nonGMO bananas, rice, oats, soy, and potatoes.
You can count on one hand all the globally mass produced variants of the above. To mass produce, we standardize and thus homogenize.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, there has always been a tendency for large corporations to overshadow culinary diversity. That is not an excuse to embrace something that's not just a monoculture but a monoculture that's owned lock stock and barrel by some megacorp.
I turn my nose up at GMO food for the same snooty reasons I would turn my nose up at boring varieties of produce in general.
Concerns about safety and patent abuse don't even have to enter the picture.
That is why this whole big fat appeal to authority is just such big fat no
Re: (Score:2)
"We can solve the corporate control problem with patent reform." -- No, we can't. It literally cannot be done. It is not impossible, but it will not happen on a timeframe to make a difference in the gmo debate. So most of your comment goes out the window.
Inb4 With that attitude of course not... I do everything I can reasonably do in support of copyright and patent reform. The legal minefield is just too complicated to make meaningful changes without a dug in obamacare level fight. And money will win that on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not true. I find it's more like 50-50. People are starting to figure out the social, political and economic problems associated with GMOs.
Me, I don't care about food safety. If I did, I wouldn't have eaten that
Re:Quit it already! (Score:4, Informative)
It's amazing how much misunderstanding of the U.S. patent system (and its history) you've packed into a single sentence.
Drop them back to the original term of 14 years
Sounds enticing on the surface, but keep in mind that was 14 years from issue. The U.S. didn't start measuring term from filing until 1995. Before that, people like Jerome Lemelson could manipulate the system by keeping applications tied up in the Patent Office literally for decades, all the while massaging the claims to cover wherever the market happened to be going in the meantime, and still get 17 years of fresh term when each patent finally was issued. I doubt you really want to go back to that kind of a system. And given that it can often take 3+ years for the Patent Office to examine a patent, the current term of 20 years from the filing date isn't effectively that much longer than the scheme you're proposing going back to.
close the "change one minor thing and re-patent" loophole
No such "loophole" exists. Right now today, advances over the prior art are only patentable if they would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 35 U.S.C. 103. If your real quibble is that the Patent Office issues too many patents with claims that actually would have been obvious, I won't disagree, but the solution is to more consistently enforce the rules that currently exist, not change them. The new procedures put in place by the America Invents Act (such as inter partes review) are helping with this a great deal.
and make damn sure they STAY at 14 years and don't let them ever become renewable or extended and grow out of control like copyright has.
Nobody is suggesting doing any of these things, so there's nothing to "reform."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Facts can be cherry-picked, or, as in this case, lumped into one basket when you need to look for differences.
GMO in general are not harmful. Certain modifications by Monsanto, and nearly 100% of their tactics, are massively harmful.
Wrong problem of GMO identified (Score:2)
The real risk inherent in genetically modified organisms involves the fact that genetic manipulation is becoming increasingly arbitrary, with new techniques that essentially allow building up of genomes or sections of them from human-designed or computer-designed combinations of the basic letters AGTC.
Thus it will become possible to create organisms that are almost arbitrarily different than existing organisms.
It is far from inconceivable that one of these substantially-artificial organisms could take over
Re:Quit it already! (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Lock-in, once you've planted a seed you can't go back because any remaining seeds could grow and the farmer can then be sued.
BS. The farmer can buy new seed and plant it. There is no "lock-in".
2) Suing neighbouring farmers when the seeds get into their crops (documented, google it)
More BS. Monsanto sued Perry Schmeiser [wikipedia.org] for intentionally and repeatedly growing patented canola. They have never sued anyone for unintentional infringement. Next time you assert that something is "documented", you may want to confirm that it actually is.
3) Expense, no surprises that the GMO seeds are more expensive and require expensive pesticides etc from the company that sells the seeds.
Some GMO plants require no pesticides. The most widely used GMO crops are glyphosate tolerant. Glyphosate herbicide is cheap, is not patented, and is manufactured by many companies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if 109 music, movie and sports stars came forward we may be talking some actual change in perception.
I think you hit the nail on the head. No teen or millennial gives a shit about what some egghead scientist with decades of experience says, but if Kanye or Kim Kardashian or Daenerys Targaryen came out in favor of GMOs then you'd get a tidal wave of popular support. Facebook would explode with 'Likes" for GMOs and the debate would be over.
But seriously, you're right. No one under 30 or 40 is going to waste their time listing to "facts" and "research" and boring old stuff like that. They want titties and sic
Re: (Score:3)
Golden rice isn't even a good poster boy for genetic manipulate. It's entirely unnecessary. You can simply feed people something besides rice. A number of vegetables store or dry well. Root vegetables are particularly easy to store in low tech environments.
Golden rice is just an attempt to avoid simple solutions to the problem.
Re:Quit it already! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that many times these people simply can't afford other vegetables.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if 109 music, movie and sports stars came forward we may be talking some actual change in perception.
A large number of the NLs that signed have exactly as much biology/nutritional experience as movie and sports stars.
Understand that I do not have an issue with the proper and safe application of gene manipulation in the food chain or elsewhere. My issue rests entirely on NLs leveraging their social status to sway opinions in matters in which they are no better qualified than Bono or Mike Tyson. NLs should know better, and it diminishes the title when this happens.
This does not apply to the NLs on th
Bet you can't name a single one (Score:2)
> NLs leveraging their social status to sway opinions in matters in which they are no better qualified than Bono or Mike Tyson.
I bet you can't name a single nobel laurete who isn't OBVIOUSLY smarter than Mike Tyson in general. Any NL is highly literate, which makes them more qualified than Tyson on any subject other than perhaps boxing, and ear bitingb
Patents and Rents My Friend (Score:3)
Patents, related collusion/corruption are the main problem with GMOs my friend.
Re:Quit it already! (Score:5, Insightful)
GMO is for Liberals
As
Global Warming is for conservatives
Liberals have a hard time realizing that something is safe.
While conservatives have a hard time realizing that something is dangerious.
We need to take the political nonsence out of science and teach science as it suppose to be a method of determining truth by a rigorous set of rules. Let's not put on TV every new hypothesis and call it a theory. So people jump blindly on scientific guesses before the process runs it corse.
Re:Quit it already! (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to indulge in trendy fear-mongering based on irrational grounds. Why won't they give me the tools I need?
Or bash it with actual proof... (Score:5, Insightful)
So far all I hear are a bunch of "concerned" people with various naturistic hippybullshit beliefs, or unspecified concerns over "genetic modifications", ignoring the wide variety of things that are being done, and the fact that everything we eat has been genetically modified by cultivation or quicker means. We should not create new religions, prove it or it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Now explain to us why glyphosate resistance is bad. No, really. Are we reserving glyphosate for some distant future when weeds become mobile super predators, and nobody's publicized the fact?
Glyphosate was a broad spectrum herbicide that could only be used to annihilate plant cover. Roundup-ready crops added a gene that provided glyphosate resistance, allowing gyphosate to be used like a selective herbicide. We have plenty of non-selective herbicides. We ha
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that, with sliding genes and epigenetic changes, and other ways to modify expression, that we understand all of the risks.
Can't prove it is bad without the science to prove it is harmless. So standoff.
I'm fine putting it in starving nations and letting nature sort it out, but I think eating it directly is premature, since I have a choice.
The entire point of this account is to point out to people how they have made decisions or opinions or assumptions without having enough data. Especially
Re: (Score:2)
Thenell acknowledges that the fish experiment is often raised by opponents of biotechnology in an attempt to shock consumers. But he assures, "This was a product concept that was dropped four years ago, is not under development, nor is it likely to be under development in the future, since it showed so little promise. It simply was not worth pursuing."
The 'Frankenstein-style GMO' is exactly that, a scary story people tell each other.
Oh really (Score:2, Insightful)
Additionally... (Score:2)
Along those same lines, more than 100 Nobel laureates think that the undead apocalypse will never happen.
Sounds like anti-vaxxers (Score:3, Insightful)
"But I read on the internets that GMO food is made by Big Corporation whose only motive is to line their pockets, not help people. These foods will change our DNA to make us docile and less fertile so the elites can lord over us. And the food tastes like crap, too."
Yet when asked to show the evidence for such statements they always come back with, "I can't remember" or we find out the source they read is nothing but a conspiracy web site or a completely discredited report.
But they'll continue to maintain they're right and everyone else, including every scientist who performed a study showing there is no issue with GMO food, is wrong and is only saying things are okay because they're in the pocket of Big Corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-vaccine but anti-GMO here, don't lump people into one group. Some of us are concerned about ecological implications of GMO as well as predatory and questionable business practices of companies like Monsanto. GMO isn't JUST about the food, there's a bigger picture to take into account.
Re:OK, here we go... (Score:5, Informative)
And my own skepticism. Genetically modifying food on the molecular level is not the same as breeding. You will never see in nature where mechanical and chemical means are used to cross species like it's done in the lab.
Actually this is 100% false. Not only do genes cross from species to species in nature, but it actually happens all the time. In fact the human genome -- your genome -- has some 100,000 gene fragments from some other species inserted into it. Three of those genes spliced into you are actually complete gene sequences, one of which is responsible for the human placenta.
http://www.isciencemag.co.uk/f... [isciencemag.co.uk]
Sure (Score:3)
Information is key (Score:4, Insightful)
Information is key.
I can recommend listening to dotnetrocks geek out on GMO here https://www.dotnetrocks.com/?s... [dotnetrocks.com]
I know
"one of the key benefits of GMO is increased crop" (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you use the farming methods which are already devastating our cropland. Contrary to popular belief, organic farming doesn't mean that you only use stuff on the USDA approved list. It means a cyclical system in which feces gets returned to the fields. This is a perfectly safe thing to do if you observe basic safety standards, and if you're not overmedicating your population so severely that their waste becomes a health hazard on that basis; crap left to sit around for a year turns into dirt. It can happen much more quickly if you add a little compost and stir it occasionally, but that's not strictly necessary. Or you can use systems like AIWPS [sdsu.edu] to permit the use of ordinary flush toilets and sewer architecture.
Tilth is not in itself inherently harmful, although it is unnecessary and a waste of energy input. Monocropping is inherently harmful, especially when it is done continuously, without the benefit of crop rotation. This has become more and more common in factory farming. This is essentially hydroponic farming in a soil medium. Everything that the plant needs has to be supplied manually, and it's done using synthetic fertilizers made from petroleum.
It's not that GMO is inherently bad. It's that the majority of it is controlled by untrustworthy assholes who use it to no good end. They're patenting life and selling it back to us.
Re: (Score:2)
"Only if you use the farming methods which are already devastating our cropland. "
In what world does hydroponics not apply to GMO?
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy your parasitic Helminth worm infestation...
This is precisely how plagues start.
Re: (Score:2)
crap left to sit around for a year turns into dirt.
Enjoy your parasitic Helminth worm infestation...
This is precisely how plagues start.
If only you had ever composted anything, you would know that heat alone will solve that problem if you only put all the crap in one pile.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to side with every state and federal regulatory agency in the US, which bans any use of human waste on food crops, over your assertion that it's trivially easy to render safe.
Re: (Score:2)
in which feces gets returned to the fields
I guess we finally know the meaning behind your username...
Re: (Score:2)
Then you summarised with, "you can't patent Life, man."
Oh no, you clearly can. The question is whether you should be able to, and I would obviously argue against.
I'll cheerfully stop bashing it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'll cheerfully stop bashing it (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you bash Monsanto instead of bashing GMOs? It's like bashing Ford for bad drivers.
Not exactly (Score:2)
No quite (Score:2)
Its like Ford towing away your current car, putting in their own car in its place and then demanding money from you for the car they just put in stating that because its in your parking spot you own it and have to pay them for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just regulate it already so there's enough profit motive to keep people interested as opposed to living like god-kings.
1. How much is "enough profit motive to keep people interested"?
2. How do you know "companies like Monsanto" are currently making more than that? (Bonus question: If they are, how much cheaper do you think their products would be at the "enough profit motive" level?)
3. How would these companies continue to have "enough profit motive" to engage in R&D in a world where farmers need only buy seeds from them once, then replant saved seed every year thereafter?
I like my GM food made the old fashioned way (Score:2)
Modified over tens, hundreds, or thousands of years of selective breeding for the desired traits.
Just kidding, kinda.
I do wonder a bit though when we start putting arctic fish genes into plants to make them frost tolerant[1]
Or "insecticides" into food crops[2]
I do want plenty of testing before it starts showing up grocery store shelves.
[1] http://www.public.iastate.edu/... [iastate.edu]
[2] http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/vista... [uiuc.edu]
GMO has real dangers... (Score:2)
...but none of those dangers are the ones the anti-GMO idiots are ranting about. And they're mostly philosophical or theoretical dangers, such as effects of biological "intellectual property". Meanwhile, they discount that GMO food could be safer, via having reductions in natural toxins or artificial pesticides. Also GMOs have an intelligent design process plus testing (rather than random mutation and no testing). For a good laugh, compare the list of dangers an environut claims vs those from a biologist.
Fuck All 109 of Them (Score:2, Informative)
Assume all modifications are safe.
Are all humans working with them perfect and not malevolent? (No.)
Can we ensure no cross contamination or impact to other species (plants, insects, whatever) is ever possible? (No.)
Further:
A select few individuals on the planet control the vast majority of the food supply. They control the direction its going, the cost to buy seeds, and the seeds themselves because they've been engineered not to germinate or produce viable offspring past the first generation.
The food sup
Re: (Score:2)
Genetic modifications are always safe, so long as they result from random mutation ;-p
It is amazing how stupid the anti-gmo are (Score:2)
The reason why ppl scream about GMO food is that a FEW of the modifications has been to make these plants resistant to round-up. TO be honest, that is stupid that they are doing that. It will only be a matter of time before that gene is spread to weeds and make worthless. That is real. However, the question of how that gene will move is not from human intervention by from n
Also about the BUSINESS of GMOs that's a concern (Score:2)
To be clear, while I have some hesitation about GMOs, a lot of it is about the ecological uncertainties (what happens if the 'Frankenfish' gets into the wild and out competes/outgrows wild salmon) and the corporate practices behind it (Monsanto monopoly and aggressive practices against independent farmers, etc).
It's not just about gene splicing or wearing tinfoil hats, there are very legitimate concerns about GMOs.
Also, don't lump everyone together, I'm 100% pro vaccine, but I do have reservations about GMO
Monoculture (Score:3)
I believe that the food itself is probably OK for human consumption although GMO food (especially tomatoes) does seem to have much less and/or odd flavour. I think the biggest risk about GMO food is oddly overlooked, and that is that it will lead to a varietal monoculture controlled by a single company (Monsanto). Do you really want a single corporate with their thumb on all corn production for example? Do you really want to loose your choices of different varieties of things?
Also look at what happens when a disease hits a monoculture, It already happened to bananas in 1965, and even todays bananas still seriously risk going extinct. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
you should also post the response Greanpeace gave (Score:5, Interesting)
Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.
And about alternatives;
The only guaranteed solution to fix malnutrition is a diverse healthy diet. Providing people with real food based on ecological agriculture not only addresses malnutrition, but is also a scaleable solution to adapt to climate change.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Fuck Greenpeace. They don't want us to "meet the demands of a ballooning global population"
They want us to die.
Anything that doesn't involve hairshirts, self-loathing, and hundreds of millions of dead humans getting off the planet to "let nature heal" is beyond those assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
Golden rice has reportedly proven difficult to cultivate. Yams, squash, carrots, kale, spinach, etc. are good sources of vitamin A, and were traditionally cultivated before the push for cash crops...but if you're going to eat the rice, it's not a part of your cash crop anyway.
Also, I'm not certain how much vitamin A there is in how much golden rice. I've never happened to run across the figure. I find it quite plausible that yams are in incredibly better source of vitamin A that is an equal weight of ric
not against GMOs, just businesses (Score:2)
GMOs could be a fantastic boon for humanity. the keyword is could. The sad fact is that current engineering efforts directed toward making food have all been toward making food more addictive. They want people to buy more and more food even if it kills them and guess what, it is killing people. [who.int]
I fear we may end up with monstrosities like sugary vegetables and based on what I've seen in the market, this fear is justified.
Re: (Score:2)
109 ignorant fools who trust corps far too much.. (Score:2)
GMO's could be safe, but a significant portion are not. Thanks to our "for sale" highest bidder government, who allow substandard testing regimes to be accepted in the approval process.
Their is a world of misery headed our way thanks to these vested interests. The public is right to not trust these people. Is it any wonder why medical issues seam to be consuming ever more resources and funds look at the source, the food we eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Got any proof that a significant portion is not safe to humans? Humans are living longer and healthier than at any time in history, so you better have some strong evidence proving GMO is bad.
Missing the Point (Score:2)
The laureates are looking at it strictly through the lens of science. They are correct given the logic and brief history of experiments to date. Not qualified to fact-check it myself so I'll believe them.
However if they are being 100% honest they must admit they ignore the issues around how that science is being applied and used for real business. For example it enables the establishment of monoculture in the food supply puts it at high risk of infection. As went the Gros Michel so goes the Cavendish soon.
The real issue is... (Score:2)
The statistics used to say that GMO foods will not create a problem. They are heavily flawed and in serous need of a bit of applied chaos math with genetic outcome variations. The 'safe margin' used in the generation of mutation included no viral strains present in the habitats where the foods are raised. Scientists have definitely not finished mapping the proteins responsible for cell behavior when a cell is presented with infection. This means that we HAVE NO IDEA what viruses may or may not arise fro
My problem with GMOs (Score:3)
My problem with GMOs is not that the scary stuff that Greenpeace peddles, but the business practices of companies like Monsanto. I also have a problem with the supposedly "pro-science" folks who are anti-GMO labeling on the basis that scare-mongering will keep people from buying GMO-labeled products. I have a Ph.D. in a scientific field and one my absolute most deeply held beliefs is that nothing is more anti-science than withholding information. Don't like what people do with that information? Tough. It's your responsibility as a scientist or pro-science person to educate your audience. Telling people they've got it wrong and don't worry, they should just trust you, and no, we're not going to have a conversation about this is flat out anti-science, period, end of story. If you want people to be OK with GMOs, fine, I agree with you, but it do your job as a scientist, give people complete information, and help them understand the issue instead of making them feel like they're too stupid to understand it.
By the way, one of my other deeply held beliefs is that if you are a scientist and you cannot explain your field to a layperson in a way that they can understand, you probably don't understand your own field very well. In other words, if your excuse is that people are too uneducated to understand, then I think you need to reassess how you're explaining things. You're the educated person, the onus is on you to share your knowledge. If you can't do that, shut up.
Milk Good, Bad, Good, Bad...wait GMO is good (Score:2)
All about Monsanto - conspiracy theory (Score:3)
It was all about bashing Monsanto — the "evil" [investopedia.com] company, that specialized in GMO seeds and holds thousands of patents [gmoanswers.com].
European competitors in particular were so afraid of it rising, they started a PR campaign to mongering fears of GMOs. The campaign created public's perception so negative, some countries (France, Germany) ban GMOs outright and vandals attack growers. Lately Monsanto (and DuPont) must've started fighting back, because American media began defending the technology — even calling its opponents "anti-Science" [nytimes.com] (where have I heard that before?).
But now that a German firm is seeking to buy Monsanto [bloomberg.com], Europeans need to be disabused [bloomberg.com] of their misconceptions [dw.com] too.
GMO-haters have nothing but FUD — they've heard it is (or may be) dangerous, but don't know why — somebody told them... See also "chemtrails" and "Trump is racist".
Unfortunately, even in the US food can not be labeled "Organic", if it contains GMOs [usda.gov]...
disrupting natural gene pools (Score:2)
The 109 can't actually know that... (Score:2)
Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C...
No, they don't actually know that, they can't...
Why? Because they don't have hundreds of years of experience with it, and that much at least will be needed to know if we are totally screwing with our food supply or not...
This is our food, without it, we all die. This is one of the most important things we can touch, next to our air and water...
We don't have any idea what the long term evolution changes will be to the general food supply with all our tampering, but I do know that we already have narrowed d
Re: (Score:2)
a) Do you think it's worse than "naturally" breeding a monoculture of cattle, fruit (bananas, etc.) for farming? Because that's been going on for THOUSANDS of years.
b) We don't have hundreds of years of experience with plastic. Or many oil derivatives. Or electromagnetism in devices held next to your head. And yet all the same scaremongering bollocks applies to those too. When it comes to that quantum mechanics is only 100 years old, really, and do you whine that we might be destroying the universe by
As long as there is a chance of corporate (Score:2)
crops/species invading and replacing natural non patented species we have every right to bash them and question them.
b.s. propaganda stunt (Score:2)
Here is what really happened:http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/01/107-nobel-laureate-attack-on-greenpeace-traced-back-to-biotech-pr-operators/
Re:Label it then (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's so safe, label it as GMO like other countries do and let people choose.
You know how I know that you don't just want to "let people choose"? Because if that was your real concern, you'd instead introduce voluntary labeling of GMO-free foods. Like, you know, what we already have. Then people who decide to go "GMO-free" could do so to their hearts content, and you aren't using the government to promote your anti-GMO agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
For decades they've blocked the use of such labels in the US.
Only recently has this been allowed, and only last year has a standard label been designed. A handful of products have been certified to use the USDA's standard label.
Anytime you want to slap a label on something about how your product doesn't contain the awful shit another product does, you get a massive push back, lawsuits, etc. that can last decades. Look at the fight the milk lobby put up against the hormone labeling. You can't say your but
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then, that's a good thing to complain about, because truthful advertising should always be allowed. If you can't advertise something as GMO-free when it is -- which, based on what's available at the local grocery store, isn't actually a problem today -- then I'm happy to support changing that.
That doesn't have anything to do with trying to force companies to add a scary new label to convince people to stay away from GMO food, though.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's so safe, label it as GMO like other countries do and let people choose. Any time you have to hide something, there's usually a reason.
First of all, just because you don't list something doesn't mean you're "hiding" something. Food containers and labels have limited space. There's a basically infinite amount of facts about a food you could list on a label, but most of it is deemed irrelevant by companies. ("Gosh darn it! Where are the numbers listing the viscosity, specific gravity, and thermal diffusivity of my yogurt on the label!?! What are they hiding?!")
Second, the FDA and various government organizations regulate what companie
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Whatever happened to the simple principle of labelling things?
We have to list ingredients, unless they are only used to "process" the item. So, we could literally dip the item in Agent Orange, as long as we then washed the item afterward. Never mind that things have membranes that are porous -- we washed it off!
We preserve nuts with sulfuryl fluoride, a product used to fumigate houses. A product that have caused serious and permanent damage when people went back into the house too soon [patch.com]. But none
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wow. (Score:3)
The problem is the label doesn't help consumers make informed decisions, it just helps them make irrational ones.
Maybe so. But people should be free to make irrational decisions.
Vitamin pills, homeopathy and feng shui are just a few examples of irrational things that lead people to spend their money unwisely. In a free society, that's just part of life's rich tapestry.
If a sufficiently significant proportion of the population wants labels, they should have labels. Your definition of irrationality is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to the simple principle of labeling things?
Vermont passed a GMO Labeling Law [vtrighttoknowgmos.org] that went into effect July 1, 2016. As NPR [npr.org] noted, since most food companies can't (read: won't) practically make different labels for different states, the effects of this law will cover national food labels.
Now... The US Congress, pushed by AG companies, is voting on a bill next week to (basically) preempt this law [vtrighttoknowgmos.org]:
This bill would delay labeling for up to two years while the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture develops rules for the labeling of genetically engineered foods. The Secretary would be charged with developing three options of disclosure including a plain language label, a symbol, and electronic or digital links accompanied by the wording “scan here for more food information”.
[Not sure a QR code instead of words would be that helpful while grocery shopping.]
More links at: http://www.google.com/search?q=vermont+gmo+labeling+law [google.com]
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they don't. Labels can indicate benefits, too. There are nutritional labels, labels that say, "organic" or "kosher" or even, "New and Improved!".
The bottom line is that consumers, who are paying for every goddamn thing including the research into GMOs, want labels indicating GMOs. It doesn't matter why. They're paying the bills, they get to make consumer choices for whatever reason they want, including ones that you might think unimportant.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard a reporter on NPR mention that there's also a general belief that non-GMO foods are (should be) less expensive. Not sure AG companies want to foster that belief...
Re: Wow. (Score:2)
Having GMO labeling is every bit as pointless as saying what particular state and county it was grown in, or whether it's kosher or halal. Really, it is.
The reason food has an ingredient list is so consumers can identify possible allergens prior to consumption. If it's not listed on the label, then it is immaterial to the food.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers don't know what they actually want.
How do you label a food as GMO? What is GMO exactly?
If you mutate a seed with radiation or you cross breed with chemical mutagens that is currently qualified as organic in the USA and EU. Those are considered to be completely safe and traditional methods of engineering.
Why is using radiation okay but inserting a specific gene at a specific location not okay?
Saying something is GMO tells you nothing and it is just feeding into fear.
Re: (Score:3)
> How do you label a food as GMO? What is GMO exactly?
Really? You're going to try and pull that stunt? All that shows is how utterly untrustworthy ANY GMO is. You're making our arguments for us. You can't be trusted, therefore you deserve even higher scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
You are funny.
http://www.infowars.com/watch-... [infowars.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the key issue here is not your freedom of choosing GMO or not, it's the millions of people who are starving.
it's the same bullshit wih the malaria. Greeners sit in front of their Macbook, sipping their skinny latte, enjoying their self-righteous campaigns and brochures and tweets, while poor people thousands of miles away die of malaria and hunger.
Re: (Score:2)
" it's the millions of people who are starving.
Yeah - and they coming out of thin air creating justification arguments for all kinds of BS.
Why are people unhappy and argue, are angry, fight and kill about ideas in their brains?
Are the current systems in place able to address those issues?
Re: (Score:3)
Horseshit. What does my ability to make consumer choices about the provenance of the food I eat have to do with millions of people who are starving?: If I don't eat RoundupTM Corn, does that mean starving people in Bangladesh won't get to eat their Golden RiceTM? Is the food safety of the world dependent on hiding a single true bit of information from food consumers?
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting to see that the "let's cull the herd" proponents always want to impose their rational solution on other people, not on themselves. It's like seeing union workers voting for a contract with less benefits that only apply to new people, not to existing union members.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point.... (Score:5, Informative)
The logical argument against GMOs is not that there is anything wrong with modifying genomes
No, it is and always has been exactly that. Where do you think the whole "frankenfood" argument comes from? Stop being so naive.
which is to be raised in soils heavily laden with chemicals
If chemicals are bad, then quite honestly, you should just stop eating period. Every plant that exists is made up of thousands of chemicals. In fact you should stop drinking and breathing too for the same reason. You should probably stop existing too, because your body has thousands of chemicals within it as well.
This has caused a massive increase of such chemicals in our diet. They have been linked to cancer, autism, and a slew of gastrointestinal problems.
No, they haven't. Glyphosate in particular has only been found dangerous to those who handle massive quantities of it at a time, just like many other chemicals, including ones that reside within your body and are supposed to be there. And autism? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any idea what autism even is? No, of course you don't; you listen to whatever bro science you find on AlexJones.com and believe it's fact without bothering to cross check it. And besides, your claim is complete bullshit:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/... [snopes.com]
People like you are the reason so many hipster douches are horribly wrong on this issue. You are seriously exactly the type of person who would have followed Hitler just because he made a bunch of populist (yet very incorrect) arguments about why Jews are ruining the world. Think as an individual for once in your life. If a bunch of your friends or some "really cool dude" you know makes an incredible claim, view it with a critical eye until you've done your own research. Pamphlets handed around and random "nature is best" blogs don't count as research, in case you had to ask.
Re: (Score:3)
That may be the point from your personal perspective but when I read news reports about people destroying research crops in the middle of the night, and calling for the banning of 'GMOs', people I've met who claim that it's unnatural and therefore wrong, or that modifying the genes of a carrot will give you cancer, they lose all credibility to me.
From my experience that's the public face of the Anti-GMO movement.
'GMO' stands for Genetically Modified Organism, it doesn't stand for predatory patent practices
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Hipsters are newer than GMO's, and we should study them thoroughly. Though we might need something to suppress our gag reflex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)