I can play semantics too, I didn't say natural. Can you not see any potential danger in covering the world in genetically spliced plants? You want to pick at semantics to dodge the logical fallacy in your analogy?
Such a non sequitur it's ridiculous. The by that logic red herring argument is one of the weakest around, bringing up planes in a conversation about genetic splicing as if that proves your point.
Too bad you couldn't shoehorn 'strawman' into this post for the win.
Krynski, I agree with what you are saying, and I guess my point is that with 20+ years of trying to get goldenrice approved for consumption in the States, Europe or Canada, why not make an effort to get it approved in, or for, consumption solely in the third world, where it is needed? This doesn't have to be a permanent declaration. Wouldn't solving a legal issue be easier than dealing with this on a political level?
I can't agree with you more on that. However, I do recognize that people are resistant to change, and that always makes barriers. I can't fault people for making a stand to do what they think is right. Many people blanket the term and are of the belief that all GMOs are simply unhealthy for you, which is entirely false. Just the belief itself and doubt in public perception would not allow it to successfully be deemed "safe" through alternate methods. Ultimately, I respect that people are entitled to their opinions on what they regard as safe, and I hope for an eventual culture change.
The Following User Says Thank You to krynski For This Useful Post:
For the last two years, protestors have marched under the banner of the March Against Monsanto (MAM) in coordinated demonstrations around the world in opposition to genetically engineered crops, the companies that make them or market them, and governments that approve their sale. Thousands of people have participated. While many protestors may have good intentions, hoping to improve the food system, the organizers of the March Against Monsanto and many prominent NGOs that promote this event often misrepresent biotechnology and farming.
It’s time to take back the science; it’s time to march against the March Against Monsanto.
We are starting a movement to combat misinformation and fear-mongering, and promote science-based information on agricultural biotechnology
Lynas says the catalyst for his reversal was slightly more lowbrow: an internet troll. “The moment was probably when I published my last anti-GMO piece in the Guardian newspaper in 2008 and I’d just won the Royal Society Science books prize for Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet,” he said. “I was enjoying being celebrated as a trusted scientific authority. And the comments under my anti-GMO article said, ‘This guy doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. He’s clearly not familiar with the science on the issue.’ That wounded me. So, I actually learned something from Internet comments. I realized that I had to shut up. Then I had to educate myself and start right back to basics.”
Lynas’s reversal came early in 2013, in dramatic fashion. At the Oxford Farming Conference, he delivered a 50 minute speech that was met with what he describes as “shocked applause”.
“It was a complete demolition, not just of anti-GMO but of the whole organic thing,” Lynas told the Guardian. “For a lot of people, it was an ‘Oh ####’ moment. They realised they’d been lied to, at a very profound level, by the very people they’d trusted.”
Good job Trolls!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
The above is my favourite part of organic food. The other piece you need though apart from toxicity is the persistence of the pesticide in both the plant and how it concentrates up the food chain.
The main misconception with GMOs I find is that the anti-GMO crowd believes conventional products are herbicide-free. This is obviously wrong, as prior to the introduction of GM Roundup-Ready Canola, a farmer would apply:
6,800g/ac of ethalfluralin (LD50 5000mg/kg)
+ 18g/ac of clethodim (LD50 5000mg/kg)
The introduction of GM Roundup-Ready Canola allowed farmers to control the same weeds as the above 2 products, by applying:
270g/ac of glyphosate (LD50 5600mg/kg)
Not only did the active grams of herbicide on those acres decrease by 96%, but the product applied was also less toxic than what was being applied to the conventional varieties.
The other HUGE misconception is this idea that "organic" equals pesticide-free. Wrong. There is a massive market for organic approved pesticides, and they are toxic chemicals... in many cases, more toxic than their synthetic counterpart that the organic crowd believes they're saving themselves from. Troutman's post above emphasizes this.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
I’ve spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Here’s what I’ve learned. First, it’s true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies.
Second, the central argument of the anti-GMO movement—that prudence and caution are reasons to avoid genetically engineered, or GE, food—is a sham.
Third, there are valid concerns about some aspects of GE agriculture, such as herbicides, monocultures, and patents. But none of these concerns is fundamentally about genetic engineering.
If you’re like me, you don’t really want to wade into this issue. It’s too big, technical, and confusing. But come with me, just this once. I want to take you backstage, behind those blanket assurances about the safety of genetic engineering. I want to take you down into the details of four GMO fights, because that’s where you’ll find truth. You’ll come to the last curtain, the one that hides the reality of the anti-GMO movement. And you’ll see what’s behind it.
On one side is an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science. On the other side are corporate cowards who would rather stick to profitable weed-killing than invest in products that might offend a suspicious public. The only way to end this fight is to educate ourselves and make it clear to everyone—European governments, trend-setting grocers, fad-hopping restaurant chains, research universities, and biotechnology investors—that we’re ready, as voters and consumers, to embrace nutritious, environmentally friendly food, no matter where it got its genes. We want our GMOs. Now, show us what you can do.
Last edited by troutman; 07-16-2015 at 02:39 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
So Glyphosate is generally attacked because it was designed with GMO's in mind and is created by the evil empire (sarcasm) known as Monsanto.
What seems to get lost all the time when I see it brought up is how little people know the history of herbicides and pesticides, short story version; they were far more toxic and we have come a long way. Roundup is a perfect example of that, farmers need far less than before it was available and its far less toxic.
I've yet to see a good response to what has been reported on the WHO news story about omitting some key information from its report, but here is what Steven Novella had to say 2 years ago.
Quote:
Glyphosate, in fact, is one of the safer pesticides in use (including many organic pesticides). It has replaced far more toxic herbicides. Opposing glyphosate because of unwarranted fears of toxicity is likely to cause harm due to whatever replaces it. Tilling is bad for the soil and releases CO2 into the atmosphere, and we cannot feed the world through hand weeding. Herbicides have to be part of the equation, and glyphosate is one of the safest out there.
The big problem with glysophate is that it's overuse will lead/ has led to disease resistance. Where it's use could be reduced with better farming practices. It's like anti biotic use. Far too much is used in blanket situations rather than as a part of the system.
Exactly, but that is the issue with large commercial farming and not the issue with glyphostate, just greed and not following the guidelines for using it or any other herbicide or pesticide.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Exactly, but that is the issue with large commercial farming and not the issue with glyphostate, just greed and not following the guidelines for using it or any other herbicide or pesticide.
Most of the issues people have with GMO's and "inorganic" Farming are issues with Mono-culture Farming. The issues are there regardless.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Knut For This Useful Post:
