Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata
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.
I'm not sure these questions are any more relevant than "if we spray this plant with pesticides, what are the long-term effects?" If I'm not using as much toxin to achieve the same effect, because the plant itself is producing it in a targeted fashion instead of it being sprayed everywhere, willy-nilly, then you have to look at the possible drawbacks in the light of the certain benefits to the way things are already being done.
It's like the nuclear power protests back in the 60s and 70s - there was this huge focus on radioactive waste, and on the health dangers of radiation getting in the water, and the risk of meltdown, and so on. So thousands of coal plants went on spewing all kinds of pollution - including radioactive coal smoke - into the air and water in amounts exceeding by several orders of magnitude what the equivalent power generation in nuclear would have caused.
The choice was never in a moral vacuum where nuclear could be defeated by the forces of righteousness, and the Earth saved, but rather a choice between different imperfect solutions to the need for electrical power to run civilization.
It's a similar situation with GMO, yes, there may be dangers, but we are *already* facing similar or worse dangers with the way food is produced now. Truly staggering amounts of pesticides and herbicides are being applied, right now, with the commensurate poisoning of the environment. People are dying of starvation, right now. If GMO tech can alleviate these problems, is it sensible to ban it because of the mere potential of problems in the future, or does it make more sense to allow it, and continually seek to understand and improve it?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
I'm not sure these questions are any more relevant than "if we spray this plant with pesticides, what are the long-term effects?" If I'm not using as much toxin to achieve the same effect, because the plant itself is producing it in a targeted fashion instead of it being sprayed everywhere, willy-nilly, then you have to look at the possible drawbacks in the light of the certain benefits to the way things are already being done.
It's like the nuclear power protests back in the 60s and 70s - there was this huge focus on radioactive waste, and on the health dangers of radiation getting in the water, and the risk of meltdown, and so on. So thousands of coal plants went on spewing all kinds of pollution - including radioactive coal smoke - into the air and water in amounts exceeding by several orders of magnitude what the equivalent power generation in nuclear would have caused.
The choice was never in a moral vacuum where nuclear could be defeated by the forces of righteousness, and the Earth saved, but rather a choice between different imperfect solutions to the need for electrical power to run civilization.
It's a similar situation with GMO, yes, there may be dangers, but we are *already* facing similar or worse dangers with the way food is produced now. Truly staggering amounts of pesticides and herbicides are being applied, right now, with the commensurate poisoning of the environment. People are dying of starvation, right now. If GMO tech can alleviate these problems, is it sensible to ban it because of the mere potential of problems in the future, or does it make more sense to allow it, and continually seek to understand and improve it?
#1 ) I agree mostly with the 'best of two evils' scenario. Pesticide is a huge business, and in the last couple of years there has been a push to prove the effectiveness of pesticides in the field, and not in a laboratory setting, that was coming up with some interesting results, and was a topic being pushed by farmers, as they did not want to pay for a product that wasn't having the intended effect. The focus has been very subtlety and successfully moved into the GMO argument, instead.
#2 ) I see what you are saying about the culture of fear surrounding the nuclear power issue in the 60s. It was also a cult of misinformation on the part of the existing infrastructure, and a time where people were very apt to believe what the government told them. The heart of the cold war. Now it's more of a 'fear against fear' scenario, where both sides are ignoring the positives of the opponents positions entirely. Nobody seems to want the reasonable middle ground, that was eventually found in the nuclear example.
#3 ) I think that your last point is the only one that I would really disagree with. I can say with almost 100% certainty that if a blanket pardon is given to GMOs, the research to 'continually seek to understand and improve it' will come to a screeching halt. The only research at that point would be how to make them cheaper to produce, not how to make them safer. Safety would become reactionary.
You bring up some good points, but the one thing that stands in the way of finding a solution that works for both sides is that neither side is willing to discuss it. And if the GMO side wins, then all negotiation ends. Monsanto has paved the way in this regard, and that is why they are so hated.
#1 ) I agree mostly with the 'best of two evils' scenario. Pesticide is a huge business, and in the last couple of years there has been a push to prove the effectiveness of pesticides in the field, and not in a laboratory setting, that was coming up with some interesting results, and was a topic being pushed by farmers, as they did not want to pay for a product that wasn't having the intended effect. The focus has been very subtlety and successfully moved into the GMO argument, instead.
#2 ) I see what you are saying about the culture of fear surrounding the nuclear power issue in the 60s. It was also a cult of misinformation on the part of the existing infrastructure, and a time where people were very apt to believe what the government told them. The heart of the cold war. Now it's more of a 'fear against fear' scenario, where both sides are ignoring the positives of the opponents positions entirely. Nobody seems to want the reasonable middle ground, that was eventually found in the nuclear example.
#3 ) I think that your last point is the only one that I would really disagree with. I can say with almost 100% certainty that if a blanket pardon is given to GMOs, the research to 'continually seek to understand and improve it' will come to a screeching halt. The only research at that point would be how to make them cheaper to produce, not how to make them safer. Safety would become reactionary.
You bring up some good points, but the one thing that stands in the way of finding a solution that works for both sides is that neither side is willing to discuss it. And if the GMO side wins, then all negotiation ends. Monsanto has paved the way in this regard, and that is why they are so hated.
What do you mean by a "blanket pardon"? In the area of food safety, my area of work, I doubt there would be any such thing as a "blanket pardon"- particularly for something as controversial as GMOs. Extensive research goes into developing GMO products that are safe for consumers, and thus, they are should be regarded as safe for consumption. Anti-GMO campaigns have halted a lot of research and work, some without any reason. Golden rice was used as an example before in this thread, with the only difference between regular rice being that it has genetics that code for beta-carotene. This would be absolutely amazing for developing countries, AND it is 100% safe. This research has been ongoing for 20+ years, and it's still not approved. I think this shows how the public perception of GMO's has influenced its availability in the marketplace.
Honestly, you shouldn't worry about unsafe GMO's being everywhere in the grocery store- the consumer and government have made it known that only the very safest products will be made available to the consumer, and it takes a lot research and proof that the particular GMO's that are available to the consumer are particularly safe.
My education and work are in the food safety field, and my biggest concern is how they may affect the ecosystems they are grown in. The consumer has enough self-awareness to inspire enough regulations with regards to availability to consumers in the marketplace.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to krynski For This Useful Post:
You might as well decry airplanes because "nature" didn't see fit to evolve humans with wings. Morally, the question should always be "does this technology do more harm than good" and never "it ain't natural!"
This is absurdly naive. Covering the planet in genetically spliced plants is the exact same as airplanes? Seriously? The issue isn't because it's not natural, the issue that the potential negative outcome is unpredictable and potentially dangerous to the health of the entire ecosystem.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
This is absurdly naive. Covering the planet in genetically spliced plants is the exact same as airplanes? Seriously? The issue isn't because it's not natural, the issue that the potential negative outcome is unpredictable and potentially dangerous to the health of the entire ecosystem.
Uh, this is what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
The difference is huge especially morally, should humans be recombining DNA the way we see fit as opposed to how nature created it?
You ask if it's moral to recombine DNA because it's not natural to do so. Then, in the next response, you say the issue isn't whether or not it's natural. Well, you're the one that said it *is* a problem, aren't you? Is there a 2nd AcGold subbing in for you when your fingers get tired of typing?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
I can say with almost 100% certainty that if a blanket pardon is given to GMOs, the research to 'continually seek to understand and improve it' will come to a screeching halt. The only research at that point would be how to make them cheaper to produce, not how to make them safer. Safety would become reactionary.
I can't agree with this at all. The threat of litigation is enough to drive companies to make GMO crops safer, if nothing else. If your product kills people, you are going to be liable.
Further, where is the "blanket pardon" straw man coming from? Just because you are allowed to produce and sell a product doesn't mean it can't be regulated - do prescription drugs get on the market whenever Big Pharma wants to make a profit with zero testing and oversight*? Can I build cars without seatbelts, airbags, or antipollution exhaust systems just because cars are legal?
The only "blanket" is the blanket ban proposed by the opponents of GMO. Nobody is proposing we just start rolling out as many modified crops as possible and testing them by seeing if mortality rates from cancer increase 20 years down the way. Reasonable precautions for reasonable potential problems, yes: unreasonable precautions for wildly improbable issus, no.
*unless the black alien lizard helicopters demand it, of course.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
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.
I'd argue that cattle, chicken, and pork ranchers/producers could argue these questions with certainty, considering the massive # of animals, as well as generations, that have lived off of GMO feed.
"No sign of health or nutrition problems from GMO livestock feed, study finds" http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_...lasso?id=11038
Quote:
A new scientific review from the University of California, Davis, reports that the performance and health of food-producing animals consuming genetically engineered feed, first introduced 18 years ago, has been comparable to that of animals consuming non-GE feed.
Quote:
The review, led by UC Davis animal scientist Alison Van Eenennaam, examined nearly 30 years of livestock-feeding studies that represent more than 100 billion animals.
Quote:
Food-producing animals such as cows, pigs, goats, chickens and other poultry species now consume 70 to 90 percent of all genetically engineered crops, according to the new UC Davis review. In the United States, alone, 9 billion food-producing animals are produced annually, with 95 percent of them consuming feed that contains genetically engineered ingredients.
Quote:
“Studies have continually shown that the milk, meat and eggs derived from animals that have consumed GE feed are indistinguishable from the products derived from animals fed a non-GE diet,” Van Eenennaam said.
If GMOs were harmful to their livestock, or producing an inferior product, they'd be the 1st to witness it. This is their livelihood, and they would not be able to afford a risk like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata
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.
Percy Schmeiser was a lying crook. He seeded Roundup Ready canola, and claimed that it was made to be RR thru cross polination would a neighbours crop. His crop was found to be approximately 98% pure RR canola seed.
Unless you're talking about other farmers, which I am not aware of. If this is the case, do you have a link?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
You ask if it's moral to recombine DNA because it's not natural to do so. Then, in the next response, you say the issue isn't whether or not it's natural. Well, you're the one that said it *is* a problem, aren't you? Is there a 2nd AcGold subbing in for you when your fingers get tired of typing?
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.
This is absurdly naive. Covering the planet in genetically spliced plants is the exact same as airplanes? Seriously? The issue isn't because it's not natural, the issue that the potential negative outcome is unpredictable and potentially dangerous to the health of the entire ecosystem.
Not that I really want to get into the middle of this argument between you guys, but I find it kind of ironic that in actual fact, airplane exhaust HAS been found to be potentially dangerous to the health of the entire ecosystem in an unpredictable way.
The Following User Says Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
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.
Humans have been cross breeding organic matter since we first learned how to farm. We didn't need a lab to create a lot of the food we have today. Its the aspect of people being scared of a new science element and not fully understanding it. 90% of the food available to us in the modern day has been crossbred by humans.
The world would adapt accordingly. In the earths history there is on going evolution . Nothing ever has stopped the world from turning. Our plants on earth have changed hundreds of times and so has the ecosystems.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 01-22-2015 at 03:00 AM.
Reason: needed to be edited.
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.
Is your understanding of logical fallacies so juvenile that you can't understand the difference between an analogy and a red herring?
EDIT: And since you seem to fancy yourself such an expert in the fallacy department, I guess I'm also surprised that you didn't comprehend that jammies was simply pointing out your own in the first place.
I apologize for use of the term 'blanket pardon'. I generally don't edit my vocabulary to closely when posting on the internet, because.... that just sounds exhausting in the long term.
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?
Jammies, I'm not sure what you are saying about Big Pharma and Lizard helicopters, but the safety issues concerning cars, seatbelts, airbags and anti pollution exhaust, is exactly what happened in the scenario I proposed may happen. Reactionary safety. There are simply too many variables over a long period of time to identify and be proactive about every contingency, and it becomes economically prohibitive.
Yes. my solution does make the third world a guinea pig, but as was pointed out earlier in the thread... they are starving. If there are long term or unknown effects to deal with, at least they will be alive.Attempting to force legal acceptance in the first world for consumption seems greedy at the expense of dying people.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
I can play semantics too, I didn't say natural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
The difference is huge especially morally, should humans be recombining DNA the way we see fit as opposed to how nature created it?
There's semantics, and what one might call falsehood. "How nature created it" and "natural" are identical in meaning in this context. You might as well (analogy) say "I didn't say red, I said 'of a reddish colour'".
(I'll just go ahead and point out rhetorical/logical devices with italics, to make my meaning as clear as a non-existent pane of glass. (simile)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
Can you not see any potential danger in covering the world in genetically spliced plants? (hyperbole, straw man)
Can you not see the potential danger in covering the sky with airplanes?!?! (analogy, sarcasm, hyperbole)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
You want to pick at semantics to dodge the logical fallacy in your analogy? (unwarranted assumption)
An analogy is never exact, but a good analogy relies upon making explicit a relationship that holds true for the specific quality you are analogizing (semantics). Both airplanes and GMO plants are creations of technology - the specific shared quality - and not nature, therefore (logical consequence) your assertion that it is not moral to create outside of nature is subjected to argumentum ad absurdum: if a particular technology is immoral because it is unnatural, then (logical consequence) ALL technologies are immoral because they are ALL unnatural.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument if you truly believe that natural is good, and artificial is bad. That would be a pair of premises, which aren't really subject to logic unless they can be proven to be false, which is outside of the scope of my response. You might actually be a Luddite (hypothesis), and therefore (logical consequence) decry both airplanes and frankenfoods as evil without contradiction.
Or, in other words (reiteration), you can defy argumentum ad absurdum by affirming that you don't find the conclusion absurd. You can't defy it by cleverly noticing that food isn't airplanes (sarcasm), since that doesn't address the analogy so much as misunderstand completely what an analogy is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
Such a non sequitur it's ridiculous (sentence fragment). The by that logic red herring argument (what?) is one of the weakest around, bringing up planes in a conversation about genetic splicing as if that proves your point.(condescension)
Now that you know how analogies work (condescension), perhaps you will rethink the above.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
Jammies, I'm not sure what you are saying about Big Pharma and Lizard helicopters, but the safety issues concerning cars, seatbelts, airbags and anti pollution exhaust, is exactly what happened in the scenario I proposed may happen. Reactionary safety. There are simply too many variables over a long period of time to identify and be proactive about every contingency, and it becomes economically prohibitive.
Well, what I'm getting at is that the safety of technology is far more important now than it's ever been, which is why cars are far safer now than they were even 40 years ago, why pipelines face huge regulatory challenges instead of immediate approval, and why airplanes (oh how I love airplanes!) don't routinely fall out out of the sky, to name but a few examples.
"Reactionary safety" hasn't been in vogue for decades now, at least not in fully developed countries, which is where these technologies will be developed (if not necessarily first deployed). You are making the assumption that safety isn't a priority for the companies developing these foods, but where is your basis for this assumption? Certainly not from the history of how these organisms have been developed up to now, because if anything, the safety issue has been prioritized to the extent of fetishization.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
