Support GMO foods

[bilby]

And how is the lack of mandatory label preventing anti-GMOers from making legal purchasing decisions to buy "GMO-free" or "Organic" products that they feel are in their best interests?

Aside from withholding information that such consumers find relevant?

The relevant information is not being withheld. Those consumers who find it relevant have it right in front of them:

What anti-GMO activists are calling for is for GMOs to be placed at a commercial disadvantage, in the guise of providing information that already exists. If you don't care about GMOs, there is no need to label them, nor to read the labels; If you do care, then you can simply buy products labelled "GMO-free".

 

[Axulus]

Why are you not similarly concerned that the genes from new varieties created using breeding techniques will not similarly spread in the environment with unintended consequences?

Also, Monsanto is a biotech company and a vendor for the agriculture industry. Why would we expect them to spend time working on clean water? Leave that to the water companies and non-profit organizations.

Do you know how new genes are introduced to a target organism? By new genes, I mean genes which are not naturally found in any variety or closely related species of that target organism? They are transferred by vector, often viral, which is then incorporated into the genome of the target organism. This contrasts with the transmission of genetic traits through breeding schemes.

Why should a biotech company not be interested in helping develop cheap, reliable ways to provide clean water to populations?

Besides, I was asking why we, as a society do not put as much emphasis on ensuring an adequate supply of clean, potable water. And why we, as a society, do not put more efforts into eliminating armed conflicts which are responsible for so much death and destruction and starvation?

I don't think you understand modern breeding techniques that have been in place for several decades. There is nothing "natural" about it.

For example:

Chemical mutagens like EMS and DMS, radiation and transposons are used to generate mutants with desirable traits to be bred with other cultivars - a process known as Mutation Breeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding

And varieties bred with these techniques do not have to go though anywhere near as extensive of study and analysis that every single GMO seed must go through.

And even more "natural" techniques, when you have a large enough sample size, can randomly mutate and give you new characteristics that are sometimes beneficial. The earth has been going along fine for billions of years with random mutations happening all the time and brand new genes popping up and being introduced.

As to why wouldn't they be interested in developing ways to provide clean, cheap water - it's not their area of expertise. That is not their specialty. Much better to have a company that has management experience and knowledge in the area hire people to do the research.

 

[bilby]

Why are you not similarly concerned that the genes from new varieties created using breeding techniques will not similarly spread in the environment with unintended consequences?

Also, Monsanto is a biotech company and a vendor for the agriculture industry. Why would we expect them to spend time working on clean water? Leave that to the water companies and non-profit organizations.

Do you know how new genes are introduced to a target organism? By new genes, I mean genes which are not naturally found in any variety or closely related species of that target organism? They are transferred by vector, often viral, which is then incorporated into the genome of the target organism. This contrasts with the transmission of genetic traits through breeding schemes.

Are you labouring under the misapprehension that all viruses are similar, or that plant viruses are dangerous to (or even capable of interacting with) humans? Because they are not. Almost all viruses are only capable of injecting their genetic material into a very narrow range of closely related species. Humans are not at risk of contracting tobacco mosaic virus. Indeed only three families of viruses (the Bunyaviridae, Rhabdoviridae and Reoviridae) include different members that are known to infect plants and animals (including humans) - most families of virus are only infectious within much smaller genetic 'distances' than this. Humans are constantly exposed to plant viruses in their (non-GMO) food, and not one recorded case exists of a plant virus infecting a human cell, either in vitro or in vivo. I won't say it is impossible, but it is one of the less likely highly improbable events in biology - plant cells are very different from animal cells, so a virus equipped to infect plants is simply not equipped to infect animals, and vice-versa.

Biotech companies take some pains to ensure that the traits they engineer do not have the potential to spread, even to closely related strains - not because they are good, but because they are greedy, and don't want to give away for free the traits that they hope to be able to sell for a profit.

Why should a biotech company not be interested in helping develop cheap, reliable ways to provide clean water to populations?

Why should they be? It's not the business they are in. You might as well ask "Why should a breakfast cereal company not be interested in helping develop cheap, reliable ways to provide clean water to populations?". Are Kellogg's evil for developing new ways to roast cornflakes, when they could be digging wells in the Sudan?

Besides, I was asking why we, as a society do not put as much emphasis on ensuring an adequate supply of clean, potable water. And why we, as a society, do not put more efforts into eliminating armed conflicts which are responsible for so much death and destruction and starvation?

Well, those are good questions, and I agree with you that we should seek to ensure clean water for all, and peace on Earth; But I am not sure why you feel that Monsanto in particular should drop their current business model in favour of doing these things.

 

[tupac chopra]

There is no potential for harm that exists because of GMOs that did not already exist prior to GMOs.

And here again we have the anti science approach.

It can't possibly be true so there is no need to even test it.

this is Monsanto's approach too. "It can't possibly be harmful, so there is no need to do long term studies".

 

[Toni]

Thank you for your kind sentiments but you are vastly confused.

It is quite reasonable to assume that GMO genes are in fact being spread into other crops and into mom-target species. It is not a far reach at all to believe that there will be unintended consequences. And it is rational to be concerned that there is potential for those consequences to be delirious for at least some humans and for the environment.

There is no potential for harm that exists because of GMOs that did not already exist prior to GMOs. Indeed, because genetic modification is targeted, the potential for unintended consequences is far lower than with any other husbandry technique ever used. Your objection is analogous to objecting to snipers being used on the Western Front in WWI on the grounds that snipers might miss their intended target and kill a civillian; so we should ban snipers, and stick with the tried and tested 'machine gun' and 'massive artillery bombardment' techniques for killing enemy officers.

Please let us not be confused about Monsantos motives, which are corporate profit.

No matter how nefarious, nor how benevolent, their motives, the science remains unchanged. If what they are doing is risky, it is risky regardless of benevolent intent; and as what they are doing is not risky, it is harmless regardless of nefarious intent.

Please let us not forget that big business has a long history of promoting the beneficial and sometimes 'beneficial' aspects of their products while sweeping valid concerns under the rug.

Big business also has a long history of promoting the beneficial and sometimes 'beneficial' aspects of their products while defending themselves from spurious claims of harm. Which they are doing in any given case can be decided by science, but cannot be determined from history.

Look at Nestlé's promotion of formula for babies, first in the 'modern' west and then in developing nations.

OK, I am looking at it. It appears not to have involved genetic modification, so it really is not at all relevant to the question of GMO safety.

If we are truly concerned about saving lives and promoting better health in developing countries, we would be working a lot harder at promoting access to reliable sources of clean water. We certainly would be doing more to prevent armed conflicts and political instability. I suspect Monsanto hasn't found a way to make a profit on those initiatives.

Well, if you were truly concerned about saving lives and promoting better health, you would have become a doctor. I suspect that you haven't found a way to make a living as a doctor.

Of course, that is a ridiculous argument; You have chosen a career path for any number of reasons, and you don't treat sick patients, not because you don't care about them, but because it isn't your job - you are not qualified to do it, and you can do more for society, and for yourself, by doing your own job as well as you can.

It isn't Monsanto's job to dig wells for African villages, or to solve world conflict, any more than it is your job. Monsanto sells seed to farmers. They try to sell the best seed they can produce, at a competitive price. That's what they do. Whether or not any of their products are harmful is a matter for science to determine. It cannot be determined by looking at their failure to dig wells for poor villages in the Sudan.

You have zero idea what my actual career is and whether or not my work involves promoting better health or saving lives. You might actually be quite surprised at what my work involves. You actually seem to have zero idea about how new genes are introduced into target organisms or actually how these new genes work and what possible effects they might have.

You made my point: Monsanto's concern is only for its own profits. However it should be concerned about the safety of its products and practices and governmental bodies and society should insist that it shows such concern. Monsanto and other agribusiness corporations control a tremendous amount of the science related to GMOs. They are not innocent bystanders or middle men in all of this: they are the agents creating the change.

If only digging a few wells in the Sudan would touch the problem of adequate potable water in the world! Those who support GMOs claim that they support them because of their potential to solve the problem of starvation. You know what is an even bigger problem? Lack of adequate potable water. Provide adequate supplies of clean, drinkable water and you eliminate a great deal of disease and suffering. It's just not as immediately profitable.

 

[Axulus]

There is no potential for harm that exists because of GMOs that did not already exist prior to GMOs.

And here again we have the anti science approach.

It can't possibly be true so there is no need to even test it.

this is Monsanto's approach too. "It can't possibly be harmful, so there is no need to do long term studies".

Where are the long term studies for the non-GMO varieties cultivated using techniques such as mutation breeding and other classical techniques where it is unknown what genes were introduced into the new variety? Your double standards is really revealing your irrational bias. Right now, you should be advocating that all seeds stop being used except the GMO varieties, because at least they have over 600 "short-term" to "mid-term" length studies under your bizarre definitions, while the non-GMOs essentially have zero, and of course we can't starve to death.

 

[Toni]

Aside from withholding information that such consumers find relevant?

The relevant information is not being withheld. Those consumers who find it relevant have it right in front of them:

What anti-GMO activists are calling for is for GMOs to be placed at a commercial disadvantage, in the guise of providing information that already exists. If you don't care about GMOs, there is no need to label them, nor to read the labels; If you do care, then you can simply buy products labelled "GMO-free".

There are absolutely no products available near me which are labeled NonGMO project verified, even in the crunchiest of local food coops.

If you ask virtually any shopper at any grocery store whether the products they have in their grocery cart contain GMOs, virtually all of them will have no idea or will assume that they do not as nothing in their cart is labeled as containing GMOs.

 

[bilby]

There is no potential for harm that exists because of GMOs that did not already exist prior to GMOs.

And here again we have the anti science approach.

FUCK! There goes ANOTHER irony meter.

It can't possibly be true so there is no need to even test it.

That's not what I said at all. But then, you can see that. Your behaviour here does you no credit.

this is Monsanto's approach too. "It can't possibly be harmful, so there is no need to do long term studies".

 

[Axulus]

Should we have a label on all non-GMO varieties that were developed in any way from mutation breeding:

"This product was made with ingredients that were developed with chemical mutagens like EMS and DMS, radiation and transposons to generate mutant seed varieties."

Or maybe those that were developed with unnatural tissue culture techniques:

"This product was made with ingredients that underwent plant tissue culture techniques to breed a new variety. This is an unnatural method to produce a new variety among plants that cannot naturally sexually reproduce with each other. No short term or long term studies have been conducted on this new variety to determine that it was safe for human consumption. The FDA has not evaluated the safety of this product".

You know, to inform the consumer so they can make a better choice.

I am outraged that these non-GMO farmers have been LYING to me by not revealing this information on their products. Can you believe they've been sneaking this shit into our food supply without our knowledge?

 

[tupac chopra]

What anti-GMO activists are calling for is for GMOs to be placed at a commercial disadvantage, in the guise of providing information that already exists. If you don't care about GMOs, there is no need to label them, nor to read the labels; If you do care, then you can simply buy products labelled "GMO-free".

Most people aren't even aware that they are eating GMO's.
And more importantly they aren't aware that companies like Monsanto refuse to do long term health studies.

Labeling GMO foods is a step towards getting some long term health studies done. Then at least we will be informed.

If perchance when we actually do these studies we do find harmful effects you are very welcome to tell us .

A) That's impossible. I still wont believe the science
B) Wow I am surprised. I never expected that.

 

[bilby]

There is no potential for harm that exists because of GMOs that did not already exist prior to GMOs. Indeed, because genetic modification is targeted, the potential for unintended consequences is far lower than with any other husbandry technique ever used. Your objection is analogous to objecting to snipers being used on the Western Front in WWI on the grounds that snipers might miss their intended target and kill a civillian; so we should ban snipers, and stick with the tried and tested 'machine gun' and 'massive artillery bombardment' techniques for killing enemy officers.

Please let us not be confused about Monsantos motives, which are corporate profit.

No matter how nefarious, nor how benevolent, their motives, the science remains unchanged. If what they are doing is risky, it is risky regardless of benevolent intent; and as what they are doing is not risky, it is harmless regardless of nefarious intent.

Please let us not forget that big business has a long history of promoting the beneficial and sometimes 'beneficial' aspects of their products while sweeping valid concerns under the rug.

Big business also has a long history of promoting the beneficial and sometimes 'beneficial' aspects of their products while defending themselves from spurious claims of harm. Which they are doing in any given case can be decided by science, but cannot be determined from history.

Look at Nestlé's promotion of formula for babies, first in the 'modern' west and then in developing nations.

OK, I am looking at it. It appears not to have involved genetic modification, so it really is not at all relevant to the question of GMO safety.

If we are truly concerned about saving lives and promoting better health in developing countries, we would be working a lot harder at promoting access to reliable sources of clean water. We certainly would be doing more to prevent armed conflicts and political instability. I suspect Monsanto hasn't found a way to make a profit on those initiatives.

Well, if you were truly concerned about saving lives and promoting better health, you would have become a doctor. I suspect that you haven't found a way to make a living as a doctor.

Of course, that is a ridiculous argument; You have chosen a career path for any number of reasons, and you don't treat sick patients, not because you don't care about them, but because it isn't your job - you are not qualified to do it, and you can do more for society, and for yourself, by doing your own job as well as you can.

It isn't Monsanto's job to dig wells for African villages, or to solve world conflict, any more than it is your job. Monsanto sells seed to farmers. They try to sell the best seed they can produce, at a competitive price. That's what they do. Whether or not any of their products are harmful is a matter for science to determine. It cannot be determined by looking at their failure to dig wells for poor villages in the Sudan.

You have zero idea what my actual career is and whether or not my work involves promoting better health or saving lives. You might actually be quite surprised at what my work involves.

No, I don't know what your career is. I doubt I would be surprised; there are lots of careers out there. If you are a doctor, then my rhetorical comment has fallen rather flat; My presumption that you are not was statistically sound, but there was always the chance I was going to get it wrong.The principle behind my comment is sound, though - Your suggestion that what Monsanto does is wrong simply because it isn't providing clean water or promoting peace is laughable. We don't all have to be directly involved in caring for others in order to contribute to their well-being; if every seed supplier became a doctor, a hydraulic engineer, or a diplomat, we would all starve.

You actually seem to have zero idea about how new genes are introduced into target organisms or actually how these new genes work and what possible effects they might have.

Well, you would be wrong on that count, so I guess we are even.

You made my point: Monsanto's concern is only for its own profits.

Nobody here was suggesting otherwise.

However it should be concerned about the safety of its products and practices and governmental bodies and society should insist that it shows such concern.

It is, and they do. killing or sickening customers is bad for business; and flouting government regulations leads to being fined or shut down, so it is in their selfish interests to avoid either.

Monsanto and other agribusiness corporations control a tremendous amount of the science related to GMOs.

Yes, they do. But if your beef is with patent law (which is, I agree, far from perfect), mandatory labelling of GMOs will do little to address it.

They are not innocent bystanders or middle men in all of this: they are the agents creating the change.

Yes, they are. Is this somehow an indication that they are evil, or that GMOs are dangerous?

If only digging a few wells in the Sudan would touch the problem of adequate potable water in the world!

Agreed. It would be great if it were that simple. Still, doing that is better than doing nothing. But it's not my job, it's not Monsanto's job, and I assume that it isn't your job either.

Those who support GMOs claim that they support them because of their potential to solve the problem of starvation.

That is one of the reasons, yes.

You know what is an even bigger problem? Lack of adequate potable water.

Yes, that's true. But there is no reason why 7 billion humans are constrained to only work on one problem at a time.

Provide adequate supplies of clean, drinkable water and you eliminate a great deal of disease and suffering. It's just not as immediately profitable.

That's true too. Which is a great shame. It doesn't, however, have anything whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not US grocers should label the products they sell if they contain GMOs.

 

[bilby]

What anti-GMO activists are calling for is for GMOs to be placed at a commercial disadvantage, in the guise of providing information that already exists. If you don't care about GMOs, there is no need to label them, nor to read the labels; If you do care, then you can simply buy products labelled "GMO-free".

Most people aren't even aware that they are eating GMO's.
And more importantly they aren't aware that companies like Monsanto refuse to do long term health studies.

Labeling GMO foods is a step towards getting some long term health studies done. Then at least we will be informed.

If perchance when we actually do these studies we do find harmful effects you are very welcome to tell us .

A) That's impossible. I still wont believe the science
B) Wow I am surprised. I never expected that.

You can't even contemplate the possibility of NOT finding harmful effects, leading to

C) I told you so

then?

You are calling for studies, but you appear to already have decided what they will find. It's almost as if you have a completely closed mind on the topic.

Perhaps if hundreds of studies already done had found evidence of harm, you would have some basis for pre-judging the outcome of some putative new study. But as that isn't the case, your confidence seems wildly misplaced.

 

[tupac chopra]

Most people aren't even aware that they are eating GMO's.
And more importantly they aren't aware that companies like Monsanto refuse to do long term health studies.

Labeling GMO foods is a step towards getting some long term health studies done. Then at least we will be informed.

If perchance when we actually do these studies we do find harmful effects you are very welcome to tell us .

A) That's impossible. I still wont believe the science
B) Wow I am surprised. I never expected that.

You can't even contemplate the possibility of NOT finding harmful effects, leading to

C) I told you so

then?

You seem so desperate to win some points that you aren't reading what was written.
I said "If perchance when we actually do these studies we do find harmful effects"

You are calling for studies, but you appear to already have decided what they will find.

No, it's you who are misreading. Slow down. As i said I wrote..."If perchance when we actually do these studies we do find harmful effects"

It's almost as if you have a completely closed mind on the topic.

See above.
Ironically it's you who are closed minded in that you think we don't need to do long term studies.
An open minded person would do the study and then draw conclusions.

 

[tupac chopra]

And here again we have the anti science approach.

It can't possibly be true so there is no need to even test it.

this is Monsanto's approach too. "It can't possibly be harmful, so there is no need to do long term studies".

Where are the long term studies for the non-GMO varieties cultivated using techniques such as mutation breeding and other classical techniques where it is unknown what genes were introduced into the new variety? Your double standards is really revealing your irrational bias. Right now, you should be advocating that all seeds stop being used except the GMO varieties, because at least they have over 600 "short-term" to "mid-term" length studies under your bizarre definitions, while the non-GMOs essentially have zero, and of course we can't starve to death.

Your problem is that you think you know something. You don't know it, but you think you do. And it is this attitude of "thinking you know something" that is dangerous. But it is not only dangerous it is unscientific

Now, stop for a moment and try to at least be open minded about this for a moment, please.

You think you know that inserting a gene in a lab "artificially", using modern scientific methods will give you the same result, the same effect on our health that a mutation occurring by other means will give us.

What I am saying is , that may be true, but it may not be true. And I'm saying that the way we gain knowledge about whether this is true is through science. We gain this knowledge by doing the controlled studies.

Then and only then, will we know whether the thing you think you know is actually true

 

[Axulus]

You can't even contemplate the possibility of NOT finding harmful effects, leading to

C) I told you so

then?

You seem so desperate to win some points that you aren't reading what was written.
I said "If perchance when we actually do these studies we do find harmful effects"

You are calling for studies, but you appear to already have decided what they will find.

No, it's you who are misreading. Slow down. As i said I wrote..."If perchance when we actually do these studies we do find harmful effects"

It's almost as if you have a completely closed mind on the topic.

See above.
Ironically it's you who are closed minded in that you think we don't need to do long term studies.
An open minded person would do the study and then draw conclusions.

Currently there are near 2000 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds.

From Nicolia 2013
Table 1. Classification of 1783 scientific records on GE crop safety published between 2002 and 2012.
Topic No. of papers
General literature (GE gen) 166
Interaction of GE crops with the environment (GE env) 847
Biodiversity 579
Gene flow 268
Gf – Wild relatives 113
Gf – Coexistence 96
Gf – Horizontal gene transfer in soil 59
Interaction of GE crops with humans and animals
(GE food and feed) 770
Substantial equivalence 46
Non-targeted approaches to equivalence assessment 107
GE food/feed consumption 312

Traceability 305

Note also that by December 2010, 15 years, 81 projects, 400 teams and at least €130 million had been spent by European Union taxpayers on issues relating to GMO safety or GMO acceptance. (This is documented in December 2010 at another GMO Pundit posting, and is described at a comprehensive European commission website.).

A summary report on this major project is available as a pdf file:EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2010 A Decade of EU-funded GMO research

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html

 

[tupac chopra]

The only thing you can't point to is actual long term studies .
Until you do, you can't say the food has been shown to be safe.
Here is the only long term study of Monsanto's GM corn. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
It was found to inconclusive. No fraud was found. It was peer reviewed.

We need to do these studies to see what we learn about what we are putting in our bodies

 

[bilby]

Where are the long term studies for the non-GMO varieties cultivated using techniques such as mutation breeding and other classical techniques where it is unknown what genes were introduced into the new variety? Your double standards is really revealing your irrational bias. Right now, you should be advocating that all seeds stop being used except the GMO varieties, because at least they have over 600 "short-term" to "mid-term" length studies under your bizarre definitions, while the non-GMOs essentially have zero, and of course we can't starve to death.

Your problem is that you think you know something. You don't know it, but you think you do. And it is this attitude of "thinking you know something" that is dangerous. But it is not only dangerous it is unscientific

Now, stop for a moment and try to at least be open minded about this for a moment, please.

Jesus Christ, have you no respect for other people's irony meters?

It's a good thing I buy them wholesale.

 

[tupac chopra]

Whenever you see their false, anti-scientific and anti-humanistic claims, I suggest you share this video. They need to be held accountable, and the misinformation needs to be corrected. Rational clear-thinking people have a moral responsibility.

I shared this video as you suggested Abe and the audience asked how many long term studies were done. I couldn't say, but you seem to be some kind of expert.
Can you help me so I can tell the people how many long term studies have been done?
Thanks

 

[Axulus]

You think you know that inserting a gene in a lab "artificially", using modern scientific methods will give you the same result, the same effect on our health that a mutation occurring by other means will give us.

You are asserting the opposite, that the other means (including the unnatural methods of plant tissue culture breeding and mutation breeding which effects many unknown genes all in one go, methods that have been used for 50+ years and have yielded a large number of seed varieties used today with beneficial traits) are safer than inserting a single, well studied gene into a common variety of these plants which is then extensively studied from all angles and obtains FDA approval after meeting a sufficient burden of proof. Where are your "long term" studies to prove your assertion? Where are your "mid-term" and "short-term" studies to prove it? You are just making up things based on your irrational fear, but you have no studies to support it, while I have thousands of studies and basically every scientific and medical organization of any prominence to support the general safety and wholesomeness of GMO varieties.

Just admit you have an anti-scientific bias, double standards, and an unreasonable standard of proof for safety of GMOs that affect only a single well studied gene and no standard of proof for safety whatsoever for these other "unnatural" varieties that affect multiple unknown genes move on, likely motivated by an irrational fear.

There is nothing shameful about having an irrational fear. Fear is an uncontrollable emotion that doesn't care one way or another about rationality/logic.

 

[tupac chopra]

You think you know that inserting a gene in a lab "artificially", using modern scientific methods will give you the same result, the same effect on our health that a mutation occurring by other means will give us.

You are asserting the opposite, that the other means (including unnatural methods of plant tissue culture breeding and mutation breeding) is safer than inserting a single, well studied gene into a common variety of these plants..

You wish I was asserting that. But I have not asserted that.
GM foods could be safer. We don't know. One would imagine though that the only long term study would have shown that, but it did not. It was inconclusive. It leant in the direction that GM corn could be less safe but was not conclusive either way.

But here is the point that you have missed and it is a big one. are you ready?
If GM foods are dangerous then we can still do something about it.
Can you please read that last sentence about 20 times. Read it 50 times if you need to.
If there is a problem with GM foods it is not too late. Do you get that? Do you understand? There is still time for us to identify a problem and rectify it.