Are GMOs the climategate of the left?

[Thor]

http://theweek.com/article/index/261...te-of-the-left

When Vermont became the first state last week to require labeling genetically modified foods, it was hardly alone. Maine and Connecticut have already passed bills requiring GMO labeling with mandates that they would not go into effect until other states did the same, and there are 85 pending GMO labeling bills in 29 states. What all these bills amount to is a stunningly anti-science campaign driven by the so-called party of science, Democrats.

It's a cause that's been growing for years on the left.

When GMOs (genetically modified organisms) were first introduced in the mid-1990s, there was a lot of promise associated with the idea. They would increase crop yields, helping farmers and reducing world hunger, and aid the environment by reducing the need for pesticides. And while they have yet to live up to such lofty promises, GMOs have been successful. Today, the most widely-known examples in the U.S. are genetically modified corn, which produces its own insecticide, and genetically modified soybeans, which are resistant to pesticides and create healthier soybean oil.

Early on, resisting GMOs was often synonymous with opposing Monsanto, the chemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation that has made a name for itself in multiple high-profile lawsuits against small-scale farmers and for its questionable ties to the FDA, EPA and even the Supreme Court. That, and the fact that at the time, there were limited scientific studies of health and environmental effects that led to instances of alarming conjecture, were enough to cast doubt on whether the gains were worth the costs.

[Devils'Advocate]

I don't see the disconnect. On climate change, the left have a strong distrust of corporations to do the right thing. They believe that polluting industry will put profits ahead of the well being of the environment.

On GMO labelling, the left have a strong distrust of corporations to do the right thing. They believe that Monsanto, Dupont et al will put profits ahead of the well being of the environment.

GMO's may produce more viable product, but they are making third world farmers go bankrupt:
http://www.monsanto.ca/ourcommitment...vingSeeds.aspx

I think Monsanto is a disgusting company.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...553729250.html

I think they should be labelled so that I can choose whether to buy them or not. I wouldn't avoid them on health grounds, but rather moral/ethical grounds. I think it perfectly SAFE to wear clothes made by 12 year olds in a sweatshop.... I just think it morally reprehensible. Just like Monsanto's business practices.

[Thor]

Its not about the corporations, its about accepting the scientific consensus, you accept climate change but deny the safety and success of GMO's.

Monsanto is not nearly as evil as its made out to be, the sheer number of lies perpetrated about them is staggering, and there is so much disinformation floating around about them and GMOs.

GMO's may produce more viable product, but they are making third world farmers go bankrupt:
http://www.monsanto.ca/ourcommitment...vingSeeds.aspx

The OP article even specifically shows this is not true, that its the 3rd world farmers that have benefited the most. Again there is a ton of disinformation being thrown around suggesting this is not the case, but it has no basis in fact.

[Tinordi]

Basically what this says is that people's priors are the dominant motivator of perceiving science and public policy. That we're motivated reasoners using science to project more deeply held political ideologies and personal identities.

The 'left' is just as human as the 'right.'

More directly, what's the point? Does this make the climate debate any less important or insane? Are we to say, well look the left falls victim to basic human psychology as well so therefore my feelings on climate are justified?

[Thor]

So often people on the left mock and ridicule the right for being anti science and not rational, while they are guilty of such behaviors. I think that's the summary I get from it.

Also if you guys want a good place to see great discussions on GMO you can always come check out https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOLOL

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Thor

So often people on the left mock and ridicule the right for being anti science and not rational, while they are guilty of such behaviors. I think that's the summary I get from it.

Interesting point, and I agree.

[Tinordi]

tu quoque

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Thor

Its not about the corporations, its about accepting the scientific consensus, you accept climate change but deny the safety and success of GMO's.

Monsanto is not nearly as evil as its made out to be, the sheer number of lies perpetrated about them is staggering, and there is so much disinformation floating around about them and GMOs.



The OP article even specifically shows this is not true, that its the 3rd world farmers that have benefited the most. Again there is a ton of disinformation being thrown around suggesting this is not the case, but it has no basis in fact.

The pertinent quote from your link is this:

We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE [genetically-engineered] crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

It seems disingenuous to claim that because studies over the last 10 years generally conclude that GMOs are safe, that there will never be a GMO produced that is dangerous. And if you question that conclusion, then you are just a quack who doesn't believe "science".

I don't really consider myself left or right leaning, or pro or anti GMOS. I am probably generally on your side. But there is something that really bugs me about the tone of trumpeting science while over-extending the conclusions of that science to try to shame anyone who is skeptical.

It is the same thing that bugs me about the pro-vaccination extremists (a side that I also generally support). I can buy the argument that all the vaccinations on the pediatric schedule have benefits that far outweigh the risks. But I hear too many people saying crap like science proves that all vaccinations have always been and always will be safe and without risk and you are an idiot if you are even skeptical of any vaccine.

I see no harm in forcing food producers to label their ingredients as GMOs and letting people decide if they want to avoid them or not. I also don't really see the anti-GMO as being exclusively a left wing cause. Sure, the anti-corporate angle is, but there are plenty of right wing groups that are against them for whatever reason as well.

[Thor]

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.

The harm from labeling is that the public is horribly informed and will stop buying a safe product and force more farmers to move into less efficient and worse types of farming, more tilling and the like.

Of course its not exclusively left wing, but I'd say the majority of the noise is coming from the left at least in North America, in EU its more of a both sides hate GMO, again badly informed public there as well.

[redforever]

I have no problem with GMO products and consider them very safe.

I do have a problem with SOME farming methods when using GMO seeds.

GMO plants have a gene introduced so the plant then becomes resistant to perhaps an insect or pest, sometimes weeds that compete for moisture and nutrients, sometimes to improve on the quality, size, or volume of the product being grown.

That in itself is all fine.

However, some farmers either are not educated properly about the use of chemicals they can now use with the plants they are growing or they perhaps think that more is better.

Take for example canola. It is a broad leaf plant so prior to it being GM to be resistant to Round-Up, you could not use chemicals to control weeds growing alongside canola.

If a chemical is being used, I consider Round-Up to be one of the safest ones out there, if of course, used as labelled. I don't use any chemicals in my veggie garden but I am not overly concerned about Round-Up if it is used properly.

Some farmers though have used Round-Up in excess of what is recommended and now the very weeds that used to be controlled by Round-Up are now becoming resistant to that same product, case in hand being dandelions.

So now you have chemical resistant weeds and in order to control them by the no-till method, new chemicals will have to be developed with the risk that they are not as safe as the present products being used.

The no-till method has pros and cons.

Certainly the land is disturbed less, which is a plus. However, more fertilizer now has to be used or else the land simply will deplete itself of nutrients very quickly. Summer fallowing lets the land rest and replenish itself. However, there is more risk with the land itself being depleted through wind, erosion, and the like.

Certainly not as much energy is consumed by implements that the farmers are using, which is a plus.

However, more chemicals are used to control weeds and chemicals can have long term side effects, and this is definitely a con.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Basically what this says is that people's priors are the dominant motivator of perceiving science and public policy. That we're motivated reasoners using science to project more deeply held political ideologies and personal identities.

The 'left' is just as human as the 'right.'

More directly, what's the point? Does this make the climate debate any less important or insane? Are we to say, well look the left falls victim to basic human psychology as well so therefore my feelings on climate are justified?

We humans are not reasoned thinkers. Our emotions are a control gate for most of our cognitive processing. Neuroscientists have been proving this for years. We are genetically wired to think in certain ways (right or left, or conservative or liberal if you will) and we are brought up to weigh issues using specific metaphors and frames. We respond positively to narratives that activate those good metaphors and negatively that activate those bad metaphors. Rationality rarely comes into play, and for good reason. These interests spend ungodly amounts of capital to frame arguments to appeal to specific metaphors which evoke emotional responses and inhibit higher brain function cognitive processing. If we are to have some well thought out discussion on either subject, we need to first eliminate all emotional rhetoric and try to find a neutral lexicon that allows people to refrain from referencing engrained metaphors and allow for some actual high level thought to take place.

I have to ask for clarification on the rest of your post as it doesn't read clearly. What point are you exactly trying to make?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about GMOs.

When I first started to read about anti-vaccines my thought process was "they work and don't cause autism but if you don't want to fine". Then I read the science and am of the believe that vaccinations (with some exceptions) should be manditory.


So, can someone do me the favour of posting scientific research so I (and others in here) don't have to go looking?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Thor

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.

The harm from labeling is that the public is horribly informed and will stop buying a safe product and force more farmers to move into less efficient and worse types of farming, more tilling and the like.

Of course its not exclusively left wing, but I'd say the majority of the noise is coming from the left at least in North America, in EU its more of a both sides hate GMO, again badly informed public there as well.

I don't think you can safely say there is nothing to worry about. All you can say is that the current products that have been studied have proven safe so far.

Your argument for not labelling (people are too dumb to know what's good for them, so we won't tell them) just doesn't fly.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

It seems disingenuous to claim that because studies over the last 10 years generally conclude that GMOs are safe, that there will never be a GMO produced that is dangerous. And if you question that conclusion, then you are just a quack who doesn't believe "science".

Just to clarify, you think that GMOs up to this point are safe, but you don't want them because sometime in the future they might not be safe?

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Just to clarify, you think that GMOs up to this point are safe, but you don't want them because sometime in the future they might not be safe?

I don't think he is saying don't use them. I think he is saying it's good to keep an eye on GMOs and how they are used and that it is not a bad idea to question things or label things.

That's how I read it anyway.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Just to clarify, you think that GMOs up to this point are safe, but you don't want them because sometime in the future they might not be safe?

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. It is creating a dangerous environment to shame all skeptics and label them as people who don't believe in science. Especially when the so-call pro-science crowd is using science to support an overly broad conclusion. I am sure there will be a bad batch of vaccines, or a GMO that does cause some harm that will come out in the next few years. In the current environment, it seems like the reflex reaction is to dismiss any reports of any ill effects for either of these because "science" says they are both completely safe and forever without risks.

I would probably not be dissuaded by a GMO label, but I can't buy the argument that they shouldn't be labelled.

[GGG]

I don't like the hyperbole of the thread title. It tries to lump issues together to create an uproar.

I would much prefer all people can be anti science when the science conflicts with their world view. Be it vaccines, organic food, wacky medicine, climate change, evolution, etc.

As for GMOs I am not against if in the ingredient list they put the type of seed used to grow the crop. I am against using the term GMO. The problem with using the words Non-GMO, low fat, sugar free, fat free, cruelty free, organic, free range or calorie reduced is that it implies that this food is somehow safer, healthier, of more ethical. The presence of these labels ensure non of these things so they are just false advertising.

Take organic for example, people assume that means pesticide free when it means only organic pesticides are used. These are sometimes better and sometimes worse for the environment.

Our food needs to stop making claims and just state facts. So if in the fine print of the ingredients one says made with Canola seed 1574583 and the other says made with Canola seed 15746225 that is okay but plastering GMO free on a 200 calorie fat free organic fruit snack with Disney princesses on it to make mom feel good about feeding sugar to her kids is terrible policy. Yes, little Timmy is morbidly obese but at least you didn't feed him any GMOs.

If we want to go after the food industry lets make it count. NO MORE HEALTH CLAIMS ON FOOD.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by redforever

Take for example canola. It is a broad leaf plant so prior to it being GM to be resistant to Round-Up, you could not use chemicals to control weeds growing alongside canola.

This is not true.

With conventional canola, there were a variety of chemicals that could be used. The most common was a product called 'Edge', it's active ingredient being ethafluralin. Ethafluralin is a residual granular herbicide that was broadcast over the soil prior to seeding the conventional canola, and it would remain active in that soil for months, even years, depending on the soil type and weather conditions.

Originally Posted by redforever

If a chemical is being used, I consider Round-Up to be one of the safest ones out there, if of course, used as labelled. I don't use any chemicals in my veggie garden but I am not overly concerned about Round-Up if it is used properly.

Agreed.

Glyphosate (RoundUp) becomes inactive as soon as it comes into contact with the soil, or even touches dust. If high winds under dry conditions blow dust onto your field, you will get an awful weed kill as the dust will tie up the glyphosate, preventing it from penetrating the leaf surface.

If anyone's curious on the lethal dose of glyhposate, here it is, along with some others that we voluntarily ingest:

LD50 (rats):

glyphosate - 4320mg/kg
table salt - 3000mg/kg
caffeine - 192 mg/kg
nicotine - 50 mg/kg

Originally Posted by redforever

Certainly the land is disturbed less, which is a plus. However, more fertilizer now has to be used or else the land simply will deplete itself of nutrients very quickly. Summer fallowing lets the land rest and replenish itself. However, there is more risk with the land itself being depleted through wind, erosion, and the like.

I'm not sure I understand what GMO crops have to do with summerfallow?

[peter12]

If you can't separate the near-miracle of GMO food from the public-choice incentives of the US corporate lobbying system, then you do deserve to pay 4 times more for the same product even though it is labeled organic.

[AcGold]

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.