The Anti GMO movement, is it the new Kony 2012?

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It would be better for the plant to be delicious. The health effects of those fruit are irrelevant. Do you think cave men cared about their cholesterol levels? The human body evolved to eat many things. The food didn't evolve to fit human diet...

Generally speaking, it was beneficial for humans to consume something of high calories in previous times. Therefore, high calorie = extremely healthy due to scarcity of food. Generally speaking, high calorie was also extremely delicious in comparison to lower calorie foods. The current availability and overconsumption of food has definitely negatively affected the human population presently, but that this was extremely advantageous for early peoples.

No, I don't. Firstly, the food they consumed would not have been extremely high in HDL cholesterols if we are talking pre-agricultural era. Besides that, cholesterol levels are a moot point when you have an average life span of 45 years.

We cultivated and artificially selected for a variety of traits that were beneficial for us, but also beneficial for the crop. Therefore, a lot of these traits evolved for our diet, and were allowed the crop to have increased fitness. The more that the trait was selected for increased survival and nutrition [edit: of the crop and the cultivator], the greater likelihood it was a desirable trait and selected for. So yeah, that is exactly what happened. Food evolved to better fit our diet in the agriculture age.

[Thor]

Over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA”

A recent survey by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics finds that over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA,” about the same number as support mandatory labeling of GMO foods “produced with genetic engineering.” Oklahoma State economist Jayson Lusk has some additional details on the survey. If the government does impose mandatory labeling on foods containing DNA, perhaps the label might look something like this:

WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children.

The Oklahoma State survey result is probably an example of the intersection between scientific ignorance and political ignorance, both of which are widespread.The most obvious explanation for the data is that most of these people don’t really understand what DNA is, and don’t realize that it is contained in almost all food. When they read that a strange substance called “DNA” might be included in their food, they might suspect that this is some dangerous chemical inserted by greedy corporations for their own nefarious purposes.

Polls repeatedly show that much of the public is often ignorant of both basic scientific facts, and basic facts about government and public policy. Just before the 2014 elections, which determined control of Congress, only 38 percent realized that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives before the election, and the same number knew that the Democrats control the Senate. The public’s scientific knowledge isn’t much better. A 2012 National Science Foundation survey even found that about 25% of Americans don’t know that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. Issues like food labeling bring together political and scientific knowledge, and it is not surprising that public opinion on these subjects is very poorly informed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...na/?tid=pm_pop

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Thor

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...na/?tid=pm_pop

bahahahaha

[Thor]

Can't wait for the new trend in food labeling, "DNA FREE"

[psyang]

Originally Posted by Thor

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...na/?tid=pm_pop

I couldn't believe this wasn't an Onion article!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Thor

Can't wait for the new trend in food labeling, "DNA FREE"

"Billy, your Mom and I have decided from now on we're only going to eat salt and that whipped cream they make out of delicious, pure crude oil. DNA is the enemy, and the battle has begun."

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by krynski

Generally speaking, it was beneficial for humans to consume something of high calories in previous times. Therefore, high calorie = extremely healthy due to scarcity of food. Generally speaking, high calorie was also extremely delicious in comparison to lower calorie foods. The current availability and overconsumption of food has definitely negatively affected the human population presently, but that this was extremely advantageous for early peoples.

No, I don't. Firstly, the food they consumed would not have been extremely high in HDL cholesterols if we are talking pre-agricultural era. Besides that, cholesterol levels are a moot point when you have an average life span of 45 years.

We cultivated and artificially selected for a variety of traits that were beneficial for us, but also beneficial for the crop. Therefore, a lot of these traits evolved for our diet, and were allowed the crop to have increased fitness. The more that the trait was selected for increased survival and nutrition [edit: of the crop and the cultivator], the greater likelihood it was a desirable trait and selected for. So yeah, that is exactly what happened. Food evolved to better fit our diet in the agriculture age.

? Artificial selection is not the same as natural selection

[troutman]

Golden Rice Follow Up

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...ice-follow-up/

The available science and assessments indicate that GR is an extremely promising technology that gives every indication of being safe, effective, and cost-effective. It has the potential to save millions of children from going blind and thousands from dying.

Rather than opposing this technology, we should be providing public funding to support the corporate and charitable funding already being used. Field trials should be accelerated and GR should be fast-tracked, while conducting the extensive studies necessary to address every potential aspect of the technology. The potential humanitarian benefit is huge and worth the investment.

The misinformation campaign by anti-GMO groups serves only to slow the development and adoption of golden rice. In this case there is a measurable body count and human cost associated with their ideological opposition.

[Harry Lime]

Unless there is a plan to sell golden rice in first world markets without a label, I don't see how the anti-GMO movement effects the production of a product intended for a third world market. The majority of food consumed world wide isn't censored by anything or anybody in the West.

If they feel like development is being slowed by this movement, as they state in the blog, the problems they face can be overcome through transparency in the production and make up of the product, and it's intended customer base. If golden rice in only to be sold in India, and their motives are as pure as they exclaim, then they should spearhead a ban of the product in the West until proper labeling is introduced, in order to overcome the obstacle.

There are ways around this that they are purposefully not addressing.
Continued shadiness, creating mistrust. Using dying kids as a shield.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Unless there is a plan to sell golden rice in first world markets without a label, I don't see how the anti-GMO movement effects the production of a product intended for a third world market. The majority of food consumed world wide isn't censored by anything or anybody in the West.

If they feel like development is being slowed by this movement, as they state in the blog, the problems they face can be overcome through transparency in the production and make up of the product, and it's intended customer base. If golden rice in only to be sold in India, and their motives are as pure as they exclaim, then they should spearhead a ban of the product in the West until proper labeling is introduced, in order to overcome the obstacle.

There are ways around this that they are purposefully not addressing.
Continued shadiness, creating mistrust. Using dying kids as a shield.

Because spearheading a ban of their own products will decrease misplaced mistrust?

[Harry Lime]

The only people who care about GMO are people in the West who care what they are eating. They state that their customers are people in the third world who only care that they ARE eating. So, stipulate that the product won't be sold in the West until labeling laws are in place, and it would actually show support for the quality of their product that they are willing to support GMO labeling that are detailed enough to belay concerns with their product.

But as they state, they won't be selling to the West anyway, right? So they stand to lose nothing, and gain everything, by limiting the sale of a product to a customer they claim not to want.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Unless there is a plan to sell golden rice in first world markets without a label, I don't see how the anti-GMO movement effects the production of a product intended for a third world market. The majority of food consumed world wide isn't censored by anything or anybody in the West.

If they feel like development is being slowed by this movement, as they state in the blog, the problems they face can be overcome through transparency in the production and make up of the product, and it's intended customer base. If golden rice in only to be sold in India, and their motives are as pure as they exclaim, then they should spearhead a ban of the product in the West until proper labeling is introduced, in order to overcome the obstacle.

There are ways around this that they are purposefully not addressing.
Continued shadiness, creating mistrust. Using dying kids as a shield.

Google "Zambia famine GMO greenpeace"

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Google "Zambia famine GMO greenpeace"

"Kainyua M'bijjewe, Monsanto's spokesman in Africa, has accused groups such as Greenpeace of perpetuating starvation by helping to persuade African governments to reject GM foods."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-GM-maize.html

"Zambia is worried that accepting GM products might harm budding European demand for its produce, in particular organic vegetables, and Mr Sikatana said Zambia had no way to detect or manage GMOs."

The Greenpeace allegations came from Monsanto, who has other reasons for implicating the influence of anti-GMO groups, that third world governments wouldn't care about. The fragile economy of Zambia was a bigger driving factor, and after this announcement, China and South Africa matched the donation in non-GMO corn.

There is a lot of spinning going on here that has nothing to do with anything other than profit margins.

Plus Greenpeace is populated by morons. They are an easy target because they are loud and stupid, and really don't represent anyone except themselves. If anything they are a determent to any argument except possibly whaling.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by troutman

Girls Scouts reject attempts by anti-GMO parents to use their kids in fear campaign


http://geneticliteracyproject.org/20...fear-campaign/

The website also uses a lot of incendiary terms and ridicule that are the hallmarks of junk science and seems to only support a pro-GMO dialogue. It seems like the fellow that runs that site, Jon Entine, is an Agri-business shill:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philp...yes-jon-entine

http://www.propagandists.org/propagandists/jon-entine/

Originally Posted by corporatejay

What is the tremendous harm?

For example, when you modify the DNA of corn so that it produces it's own pesticide, we cannot say what the long term health affects of ingesting that product would be. Will it cause birth defects? Will health affects only manifest in second generation eaters? Does it suddenly make you explode with cancer in 30 years? No one can answer these questions with any certainty, there simply is no precedent for combining strawberry and fish DNA.



There's also harm caused from genetic copyrighting, which gives the Agri-Businesses a disturbing amount of power over what we eat. Monsanto has wiped out neighboring farmers fields when Monsanto's genetically copyrighted crops cross-pollinated with those farmers crops, on the grounds that those farmers are guilty of copyright infringement due to natural, inevitable cross-pollination. Huge for profit companies that are trying to dominate the food market while being supported by a paid-off US gov't, is something that I find very scary.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Matata

The website also uses a lot of incendiary terms and ridicule that are the hallmarks of junk science and seems to only support a pro-GMO dialogue. It seems like the fellow that runs that site, Jon Entine, is an Agri-business shill:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philp...yes-jon-entine

http://www.propagandists.org/propagandists/jon-entine/



For example, when you modify the DNA of corn so that it produces it's own pesticide, we cannot say what the long term health affects of ingesting that product would be. Will it cause birth defects? Will health affects only manifest in second generation eaters? Does it suddenly make you explode with cancer in 30 years? No one can answer these questions with any certainty, there simply is no precedent for combining strawberry and fish DNA.



There's also harm caused from genetic copyrighting, which gives the Agri-Businesses a disturbing amount of power over what we eat. Monsanto has wiped out neighboring farmers fields when Monsanto's genetically copyrighted crops cross-pollinated with those farmers crops, on the grounds that those farmers are guilty of copyright infringement due to natural, inevitable cross-pollination. Huge for profit companies that are trying to dominate the food market while being supported by a paid-off US gov't, is something that I find very scary.

Read that case, that person was found to knowingly plant Monsanto seed on his property without a license.

Also you said there IS tremendous harm, you didn't say "there might be tremendous harm", all you have done is speculate (explode from cancer ).

[PsYcNeT]

Was Suzuki ever an active genetics researcher? I'm pretty sure he was a Professor-In-Residence who was rarely in residence.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Read that case, that person was found to knowingly plant Monsanto seed on his property without a license.

Also you said there IS tremendous harm

Originally Posted by Matata

GMOs have the potential for tremendous good and tremendous harm

I'm no linguist, but I believe the qualifier of 'potential' applies to both of the proceeding terms in the sentence.

All that can be done is speculate, that is my point.

Originally Posted by corporatejay

(explode from cancer ).

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Matata

All that can be done is speculate, that is my point.

As with anything, it's the degree of cautious optimism versus the degree of "WERE ALL GONNA DIE" that matters.

As it stands, organic farming methods cannot feed everyone. GMOs are needed. Fullstop.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

As with anything, it's the degree of cautious optimism versus the degree of "WERE ALL GONNA DIE" that matters.

As it stands, organic farming methods cannot feed everyone. GMOs are needed. Fullstop.

I feel like your trying to make me into an Anti-GMO strawman, I never denied their necessity. My assertion was that we need to be very cautious.

e: I was specifically asked to elaborate on the 'tremendous harm' aspect of GMOs, which is why I've spent much more energy arguing that point.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

? Artificial selection is not the same as natural selection

I used artificial selection because it's something that's tangible and easy for humans to see, but this interaction definitely occurs naturally. Artificial selection is very similar to natural selection, but the results are obviously intended and appear to occur at a faster rate.

Here is an example involving textbook natural selection:

http://www.batcon.org/resources/medi...at_article/299

Both were "naturally" selected to form a commensal relationship that not only provide a very nutritious substance intended only for these species of bats, but also promoted the pollination of a species. Now, their existence goes hand in hand.