I am not seeing how you got that from what I said. I never said anything like I don't want them. It is way over-extending to say that just because the current GMOs have been proven safe that the practice in general is without risk and should never be questioned.
Maybe I missed where anyone has claimed, in this thread or in the article, that GMO would always be safe. Which is why your response confused me.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
However, more chemicals are used to control weeds and chemicals can have long term side effects, and this is definitely a con.
I don't agree.
We have chemicals for all conventional crops. Moving to GMO varieties doesn't mean allowing farmers to spray chemicals, it means allowing farmers to spray different chemicals. Quite often, safer chemicals. In some cases, no chemicals (ex: GMO 'Shaw' wheat is midge resistant. This eliminates the application of the extremely dangerous chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) insecticide for midge control. LD50 in mice is 60 mg... 70 times as toxic as glyphosate for comparison).
Maybe I missed where anyone has claimed, in this thread or in the article, that GMO would always be safe. Which is why your response confused me.
This quote from Thor in particular "But thats the thing, the amount of research in the last 10 years is substantial, and added to the now 2 decades plus of data we can safely say there is nothing to worry about.", struck me as being too absolute. Science hasn't proven that there is nothing to worry about with GMOs. Some studies have shown that the products they researched were safe, and there doesn't appear to me much evidence to the contrary is a statement I could accept.
GMOs are still relatively new on market. There is a possibility that some past, current or future products could have some adverse effects. Labeling them as GMO so people can choose whether or not they want to buy them doesn't seem too outrageous a request to me.
I read it as nothing to worry about for existing crops.
What you are suggesting is almost like being worried about a Skynet style machine takeover someday because Apple is making improvements to Siri. Sure it is safe now to get directions to the nearest Starbucks , but who knows where that evil computer will direct you tomorrow. Science hasn't proven it won't happen.
I do agree with you though, we should be skeptical about things, I just don't think being skeptical means you need to make guesses about that might happen in the future if things deviate from their current course.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
There is a really good book on the flaws of human reasoning called "How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life." I'd highly recommend it for those who are interested in how people go about accepting and applying information. Long-story short, it is very difficult for people to accept information that conflicts with any pre-existing narratives they hold.
I think the biggest red herring is the GMO = Good or Bad dichotomy.
Like lumping together labotamy's and hernia surgery as all surgery is good or bad.
It is disingenuous, like this thread title in my opinion.
Some GMO crops are akin to miracles for many, while others are used as a means of indenturing consumers by being unable to save and store seeds.
There are other concerns as well, like limiting biodiversity, and the negligent impact some GMO crops have as pest deterrents.
Quote:
An increasing number of pest species are developing resistance to crops genetically engineered to be toxic to insects, according to new research. In an analysis of 77 studies conducted in eight countries, a team of U.S. and French scientists found that five of 13 major pest species had become resistant to so-called Bt cotton or corn plants, which are genetically modified to exude a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, that is toxic to insects. Three of the cases occurred in the U.S., where half of all Bt plantings occur, while the others were in India and South Africa. In one instance, early signs of pest resistance to the plants appeared within two years. While researchers say all insects inevitably adapt to threats such as pesticides, the study found that farmers who planted non-Bt crops in nearby “refuges” were more likely to slow that resistance. “Either take more stringent measures to delay resistance, such as requiring larger refuges, or this pest will probably evolve resistance quickly,” said Bruce Tabashnik, a professor at the University of Arizona and lead author of the study published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.
I find the large majority of GMO food to be inferior to organic food in taste and nutritional value, all except for celery, organic celery actually tastes worse. You guys can argue about the safety of GMO's but at the end of the day there are noticeable differences in quality between GMO and non GMO food. If people want the cheaper GMO option they should be allowed, it's supposed to be a free market. But hating on people for preferring organic food is silly, the best of all is people who say there is no difference between organic and non-organic foods.
You can't taste the difference between organic and non organic versions of the same food. If you blind folded yourself and tasted 3 samples you would not be able to pick out the one that is different provided all are the same age. Organic food has the same nutritional value as non organic food.
GMO vs Non GMO I could see there being some difference as it is a slightly different product given it isn't genetically identical though I haven't seen anything studied.
Also I believe organic labeling doesn't necessarily mean gmo free. I will check to confirm though.
Edit; Although organic labeling means no GMO seeds are purchased to be planted on large scale crops you get a significant amount of cross breading between gmo fields and organic fields so there is no real thing as jmo free wheat, canola, barley etch as seeds from each year are kept for the next season.
I just can't get behind a company like Monsanto. They just have no ethics. The fact that they send their "seed KGB" goons after farmers threatening them with legal action just for saving seeds speaks volumes. Its just not right that any corporation can patent and own genes. And lets be honest, when Monsanto execs are given the power to govern the food industry its a slippery slope.
45 Million was spent by major food corporations to defeat Prop 37. At the very least products with GMO's should be labeled so the public can decide whether they want to eat these products.
The fact that they send their "seed KGB" goons after farmers threatening them with legal action just for saving seeds speaks volumes.
Actually was addressed in the video above. Farmers long before GMO seeds mostly rebought seeds every planting season, and seed companies that sell to farmers do so with signed agreements that they will not reuse the seeds.
Again Monstanto like most huge corporations does things for its best interests, but to paint it as some special evil in a system that rewards companies with little ethics is at best silly, its just become this urban legend movement since SO much of the stuff I read about monsanto is utterly untrue.
Its not about the corporations, its about accepting the scientific consensus, you accept climate change but deny the safety and success of GMO's.
It's always baffled me how many pro-choicers (and I am pro choice) jump to the "life begins at birth" argument when debating their stance. These are, generally, people who defer to science.
The notion that life doesn't begin until birth is laughable at best.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
It's always baffled me how many pro-choicers (and I am pro choice) jump to the "life begins at birth" argument when debating their stance. These are, generally, people who defer to science.
The notion that life doesn't begin until birth is laughable at best.
To make scientific claims on either side of that debate is laughable. It's 100% philosophical and wholly contingent on the individual's definition of "life."
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
To make scientific claims on either side of that debate is laughable. It's 100% philosophical and wholly contingent on the individual's definition of "life."
when life begins is not necessarily the same as personhood - but it seems to be a pickem.
I'll just quote the 2 of the top 5 myths regarding seeds in the anti GMO movement.
Quote:
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case.
The idea, however, is inspired by a real-world event. Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company's Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or "technology fee." Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else. But where?
Canola pollen can move for miles, carried by insects or the wind. Schmeiser testified that this must have been the cause, or GMO canola might have blown into his field from a passing truck. Monsanto said that this was implausible, because their tests showed that about 95 percent of Schmeiser's canola contained Monsanto's Roundup resistance gene, and it's impossible to get such high levels through stray pollen or scattered seeds. However, there's lots of confusion about these tests. Other samples, tested by other people, showed lower concentrations of Roundup resistance — but still over 50 percent of the crop.
Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.
This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money. (For more details on all this, you can read the judge's decision. Schmeiser's site contains other documents.)
So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.
Quote:
Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.
By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. (If you re-plant seeds from hybrids, you get a mixture of inferior varieties.) But even soybean and cotton farmers who don't grow hybrids were moving in that direction.
This shift started with the rise of commercial seed companies, not the advent of genetic engineering. But Monsanto and GMOs certainly accelerated the trend drastically.
As it is VERY expensive to do the R&D in genetic modification, a company needs a return on investment, seed agreements are in place for that, as is in the pharmaceutical industry 10 year patents before generics are allowed.
Honestly it's a brutal article. I'm pro-GMO overall, but trying to use climategate is complete false comparison. I could just as easily say, "The right insists on letting market forces dictate policy on matters like fossil fuel consumption, so it's hypocritical for them to suggest that market forces are not the best policy in choosing between GMOs, non-GMOs." And that would be a dumb argument for me to make, but it's on par with the OP article. The difference is that on climate change, nobody has ever argued that less information to consumers is actually better for the process; both sides attempt to win the debate with more information, rather than less, and the onus is on the consumer to make good decisions with the information that they're given.
I assume that any food that I buy that's not organic potentially involves GMOs. I've always assumed that those tasteless, mongoloid strawberries are GMO in particular, and I always buy organic for strawberries and rasberries because it's the only way in ensuring I can get ones that actually taste good.
GMOs are honestly not a meaningful solution to world hunger as the article suggests, especially compared with solutions as simple as better crop selection and usage. Stop using huge amounts of cropland in the US on corn crops that are then used for biofuels, for example. I believe we already produce about 1.5 times the food necessary to feed the entire world's population.
I'm particularly in favour of GMOs as a solution to finding drought-resistant crop solutions for agriculturally challenged regions; that's far more significant than GM corn for biofuel, and that's probably the direction that GMOs are going right now. On a global scale, probably Europe and North America become the two parts of the world where GMOs are not accepted.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Its just not right that any corporation can patent and own genes.
Why not? They've spent billions developing that gene... as it's not something that occurs naturally.
Why should someone be able to use that technology without paying for it? That's stealing.
It's no different than any other technology. Companies create a device/product, and patent it. If you want to use that device/product, you have to buy it from them. If you were to buy it once, mimick the parts/technology, and then sell it yourself, you'd get your ass sued off.
Monsanto does not and never will have a patent on conventional canola. Anyone is free to grow it, save the seed, and grow their own farm saved seed the following year(s). But if you'd like to reap all of the benefits of Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready (glyphosate tolerant) Canola', a plant that they engineered, and they spent billions in doing so, then you will have to buy it from them.
And I never understand why Monsanto always takes heat for this. What about the LTA (Liberty Trait Agreement) farmers must sign prior to seeding InVigor canola (which represents roughly 45% of the Canadian market)? It states you must buy the LibertyLink (glufosinate tolerant) canola from Bayer, for every year you decide to grow it. No different than Monsanto's technology agreement.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
To make scientific claims on either side of that debate is laughable. It's 100% philosophical and wholly contingent on the individual's definition of "life."
NM. Not going to hijack this thread.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
That's exactly why I have a problem with it. They've made it illegal for Farmers to save their seeds.
No, they've made it illegal for farmers to save Monsanto's seeds. 'Roundup Ready' seeds.
If a farmer wants to save his seed and grow crops with it, year after year (and I know guys who do), he will have to grow a conventional variety. He can not do so with a variety that some company poured billions of dollars into and genetically engineered it into a new species. That's stealing.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
That's exactly why I have a problem with it. They've made it illegal for Farmers to save their seeds.
You have to realize that everyone who's ever grown a 'RoundUp Ready' crop, has had to sign a Monsanto TSA. In this technology stewardship agreement, it clearly states that farmers will not save the seed and plant it again the following season. Without signing off on this agreement, retailers will not sell you the 'RoundupReady' seed. If you want to save your seed and re-seed the following year, grow a conventional variety. If you want the increased yield + weed control from Monsanto's product, you're going to have to buy it from them, and rightfully so.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
