Support GMO foods

[Axulus]

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 nd it is a big one. If GM foods are dangerous the 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.

And yet your double standards are glaring again. If other methods of breeding are dangerous then we can still do something about it.

Can you please read this last sentence about 20 times? Read it 50 times if you need to.

If there is a problem with mutation breeding and plant culture breeding 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.

Yet, for some reason, you are not in any way worried or making the same demands for these methods that affect multiple unknown genes and/or create completely brand new genes that never before existed, vs. a method that inserts a single well studied gene that then goes through extensive testing and FDA approval and the general safety of which is backed up by thousands of studies and every scientific and medical organization of any prominence.

Do you understand that both traditional breeding techniques and GM techniques could all be dangerous according to your criteria, and the traditional breeding techniques (which includes mutation breeding and plant culture breeding) have far more reasons to worried?

Please read the above 100 times until you understand the double standards you are using and the irrational fear and logic.

 

[Axulus]

tupac chopra and anyone else worried about GMOs:

Please admit this single fact:

Fact: Traditional breeding techniques, which includes mutation breeding and plant culture breeding, are more likely to be dangerous to human health and the environment than GMO techniques.

Reasons to support this fact: The safety of such techniques is far less well studied than GMO techniques, and new varieties using such techniques are far more easily introduced into the food supply than GMO techniques (no FDA approval required, few studies, often completely unknown changes to the DNA/genes to the new varieties). Therefore, there is far more reason to worry about the safety to humans and to the environment for all the non-GMO varieties that have been introduced to the food supply by these other techniques compared to GMO techniques.

Please first admit this. This is a test of basic rationality, logic, and scientific fact acceptance that must be met before any further discussion on the topic is possible.

One possibility that still agrees with the above fact: both techniques are reasonably safe despite the fact that traditional breeding techniques are more risky. However, the increase is not enough to worry about when such new varieties are introduced into the food supply provided that some sort of reasonable (not overly burdensome) minimum level of testing/study is met for both.

 

[Axulus]

My e-mail to Nassim N. Taleb, who worries about GMO seeds and a possible "black swan" type event from having the wrong seed introduced into the food supply that has a completely unexpected trait that has devastating impact to human health and/or the environment. I feel that this discussion has refined my argument to the point where I'm ready to challenge a prominent academic who presents one of the strongest objections to GMOs. Thought it might be of some interest to others to understand my perspective:

Hello Nassim,

I have enjoyed listening to your commentary about GMO crops and the possible risks of such. However, one thing that puzzles me is your relative lack of worry about seeds created using traditional techniques that are prevalent in our food supply but are not considered GMO varities.

Such technqiues include the following:

"mutation breeding, which is the process of exposing seeds to chemicals or radiation in order to generate mutants with desirable traits to be bred with other cultivars. Plants created using mutagenesis are sometimes called mutagenic plants or mutagenic seeds. From 1930–2014 more than 3200 mutagenic plant varietals have been released."

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

Other techniques include plant tissue culture breeding:

"When distantly related species are crossed, plant breeders make use of a number of plant tissue culture techniques to produce progeny from otherwise fruitless mating. Interspecific and intergeneric hybrids are produced from a cross of related species or genera that do not normally sexually reproduce with each other. These crosses are referred to as Wide crosses. For example, the cereal triticale is a wheat and rye hybrid. The cells in the plants derived from the first generation created from the cross contained an uneven number of chromosomes and as result was sterile. The cell division inhibitor colchicine was used to double the number of chromosomes in the celland thus allow the production of a fertile line."

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

Both of these methods introduce changes to many unknown genes. Sometimes, as is the case of mutation breeding, a completely brand new gene that appears to have beneficial traits is formed.

Seeds created from these techniques are nowhere near as well studied for safety as GMOs. Seeds created from these techniques do not require FDA approval.

The safety and general wholesomeness of seeds created from GMO techniques have been supported by hundreds of studies. Every scientific and medical organization of prominence has attested to the general safety of GMO varieties:

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

Not only that, but GMO seeds only introduce a single new well studied gene to the seed.

The same can't be said of the hundreds or thousands of varieties of crops that have been introduced into our food supply using these other techniques.

Do you at least accept that there is far more risk to us with all these other varieties that have been introduced into our food supply that were created with other techniques?

If not, why not? What is your rational and scientific basis for being more worried about GMO varieties vs. varieties created with these other techniques?

Kind regards,
Stephen

 

[tupac chopra]

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 nd it is a big one. If GM foods are dangerous the 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.

And yet your double standards are glaring again. If other methods of breeding are dangerous then we can still do something about it.

Can you please read this last sentence about 20 times? Read it 50 times if you need to.
If there is a problem with mutation breeding and plant culture breeding 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.

You could try...good luck with that Pretty doubtful, unless you explain how you would do it

I look forward your explanation...or not

 

[tupac chopra]

tupac chopra and anyone else worried about GMOs:

Please admit this single fact:

Fact: Traditional breeding techniques, which includes mutation breeding and plant culture breeding, are more likely to be dangerous to human health and the environment than GMO techniques.

Reasons to support this fact: The safety of such techniques is far less well studied than GMO techniques, and new varieties using such techniques are far more easily introduced into the food supply than GMO techniques (no FDA approval required, few studies, often completely unknown changes to the DNA/genes to the new varieties). Therefore, there is far more reason to worry about the safety to humans and to the environment for all the non-GMO varieties that have been introduced to the food supply by these other techniques compared to GMO techniques.

You have some logical fallacies here.
Having more reason (in your mind) does not translate into more likely. If you want to say something is more likely you need to base that on facts, not subjective opinions

Please first admit this.

I can't unless I accept your logical fallacy, which I don't

This is a test of basic rationality, logic, and scientific fact acceptance

No it's not..

 

[tupac chopra]

And so we are back to the point Axulus keeps avoiding.
No longterm studies showing GM corn and many other GM foods are safe.
Yet Axulus keeps saying they are safe.

It is relatively simple to stop GM foods now if they are unsafe or in doubt.

 

[tupac chopra]

The slide you keep linking to contains an outright lie.
It says "Everything tells us they are safe". You know this is a lie, so can I ask why you are presenting it?

The example I keep bringing up will suffice.
Only one long term study on Monsanto corn. The study leant towards a view that GM corn could produce health problems, yet was inconclusive.
The question is why do you ignore this?

This study, the only long term one did not show that GM foods were safe. Quite the opposite. It raised concerns.

You sent this slide apparently to Nassim someoneorother. The guy probably assumes you are a complete tool.
Why not try to engage in genuine discussion with him......or are you trying to convince us you were?

 

[scombrid]

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide.

Yeah, I'm replying to page one pretty late in the game but this is my opinion on this topic so here it is.

The problem is that the pro-alternative medicine and anti-GM anti-VAX anti-Flouride NaturalNews.com crowd is not pro-informed consumer. They spread a crap load of disinformation aimed at boosting the sales of their crackpottery. The label that says "Contains GM Corn" simply helps promote the idea that GM is bad to people that already believe GM is bad without having the first bit of knowledge of how it works. You've got people out there that think that RoundUp ready corn contains endogenous pesticides. The labels don't help better inform those people. They automatically think "Gee, it wouldn't have a lable on it if it wasn't bad". Fucksticks like Mike Adams "The Health Ranger" know that the GM Lable would read to Joe the science illiterate public like a surgeon general's warning on alcohol or tobacco.

I'm skeptical of the safety science provided by industry scientists but I'm equally skeptical of the pseudoscience industry that is behind a lot of anti-GM campaigns. They do not increase information for consumers.

 

[scombrid]

Only one long term study on Monsanto corn. The study leant towards a view that GM corn could produce health problems, yet was inconclusive.

If I scroll back through the thread to find the link to the study it is going to be the famous Seralini rat study isn't it?

I know I'm just a fisheries biologist with just a couple of peer review publications to my name but even I can spot severe methodological flaws when I see them. Seralini's rat study is garbage. He could have fed those rats pure organic cane sugar and gotten the exact same result.

Sure we need safety studies, long term safety studies. But when the anti-crowd takes something like the Seralini study and promotes it widely as proof that GM crops cause XYZ then they aren't increasing information for anybody.

 

[ApostateAbe]

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

OK, please show them this:

Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review

 

[Jarhyn]

Typical, the anti-science crowd doesn't understand that natural selection does not favor us. It favors the organism being selected.

Tupac, there is literally nothing preventing a vast array of genes that produce extremely toxic things from arising in corn, wheat, or soybeans or any other such thing through natural means. If that makes those crops resistant to bugs, then they'll be selected for because of our artificial selection techniques. It could be carcinogenic: difficult to spot, because the effects are delayed. Such a trait would spread through global populations of wheat, corn, or rice like wildfire because if less bugs can eat it, it'll be massively successful in the evolutionary sense.

This has happened many times with many organisms. caffine, nicotine, opium, abrin, ricin, coca, BT toxin, penecillin, botulinum toxin, acetiminophen, all these things arose through mutation. All of them arose from mutation and natural selection. Nothing, at all, is preventing wheat or corn or soy from having a mutation that produces something insidiously toxic, and nothing at all guarantees that insidiously toxic thing won't confer it some sort of selective advantage.

In fact it's probably happened a few times by now. but in the days of antiquity, people who got sick and died from a thing just got sick and died, and the ones who didn't survived to produce kids who wouldn't. Blights and invasive weeds and locust were well-known and rightly feared selection pressures on crops. They still are. The genetics of our crops are not static. Given how many individuals of wheat are out there, it's actually likely one is harboring a naturally sourced black swan. It'll probably die out before propagating (it'll probably be eaten), but one of these times it'll get planted and pollinate some other plant.

GMO avoids this problem. It not only allows us to remove and cultivate monocultures free of previously evolved toxins (like the anti-acrylamide potato), it allows us to guarantee that such awful mutations would not be invasive; not much lateral progress can be made by a gene in only a few generations, when that or a different mono-strain is introduced. It can allow us to produce things like golden rice, which includes a small genetic bit from (carrots, I think?), which addresses a lack rather than a presence. It gives us surgical control, it gives us specific selective power over the things our food produces.

 

[scombrid]

It not only allows us to remove and cultivate monocultures

This is actually a fear of mine regarding modern agriculture, GM or otherwise. Desirable monocultures are very efficient producers. But, there is peril if genetic diversity isn't maintained somewhere. Pests are always evolving and I think there are times when GM and breeding cannot keep up. Massive crop failure is a risk.

 

[Jarhyn]

It not only allows us to remove and cultivate monocultures

This is actually a fear of mine regarding modern agriculture, GM or otherwise. Desirable monocultures are very efficient producers. But, there is peril if genetic diversity isn't maintained somewhere. Pests are always evolving and I think there are times when GM and breeding cannot keep up. Massive crop failure is a risk.

that's the thing, we can understand why pests or pestilence are successful and select our next generation entirely with that understanding. Anyone hybridizing the previous generation will see expression of resistant genes. But I guarantee we can isolate pathogens and pest resistances faster than mutations can propegate through the 'wild'. We might be decimated, but the solutions will be in our hands rather than in a mad scramble to find the resistant mutant, especially if we wisely change the base stock of the monoculture and just apply previous 'patches'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, buy non-GMO products. We aren't saying such things shouldn't be on the market. It's just they don't get the cost savings that are the point of GMOs and they have increased logistics cost--they'll be expensive.

I don't know if this is true. I suspect it isn't; in any real world environment, genetic modifications will be invasive into other compatible strains. If we have GMOs, everyone will be compelled to eat them, because they can't not.

It's not that non-GMO should or should not be on the market, if there are GMOs, untainted guaranteed non-GMOs can't be brought to the market because there simply won't be anything 100% untainted. And if you say that's a reason to not genetically modify at all, the answer is 'fuck you'.

Seeds are normally grown in isolation specifically to avoid this tainting.

A farmer that saves their own seed always risks tainting from whatever is being grown nearby--one of the reasons to buy seed rather than replant even without GMOs being in the picture.

- - - Updated - - -

So, buy non-GMO products. We aren't saying such things shouldn't be on the market. It's just they don't get the cost savings that are the point of GMOs and they have increased logistics cost--they'll be expensive.

It isn't possible to know whether products I purchase at the grocery store have any GMO components because there is no labeling.

So, has the price of foodstuffs increased or decreased since 1994?

If there's a market for non-GMO products then someone will fill it.

The reason you can't find them is they would be much more expensive, there won't be enough people willing to put their money where their mouth is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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".

Reading comprehension fail.

Note "that did not already exist prior to GMOs". New varieties always have a tiny risk.

 

[tupac chopra]

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

OK, please show them this:

Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review

They were really looking for independent studies with no conflicts on interest though. And just being "more than 90 days" wont cut it.
How many of those studies did you actually read?

 

[tupac chopra]

Typical, the anti-science crowd doesn't understand that natural selection does not favor us. It favors the organism being selected.

Tupac, there is literally nothing preventing a vast array of genes that produce extremely toxic things from arising in corn, wheat, or soybeans or any other such thing through natural means.

I have already acknowledged that GM foods could be safer.
But how will we know?

Sigh....as I have mentioned numerous times. We need to test, not merely assume that GMO technology isn't flawed in some way we don't understand.
We need to test this with science.
Aparently wanting something tested scientifically rather than assuming we know the answer with testing makes a person "anti science".

 

[Jarhyn]

OK, please show them this:

Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review

They were really looking for independent studies with no conflicts on interest though.

everyone has an interest in food. You won't find such a study. The people doing GMO research fall into two pretty narrow categories: people like serlini who hate GMO and want to attack all that is not 'of nature's God' and people who want to show it's not of the devil, because they'd like to eat those GMO things or sell them to farmers. Nobody else cares enough to spend millions of dollars on a study.

 

[Jarhyn]

Typical, the anti-science crowd doesn't understand that natural selection does not favor us. It favors the organism being selected.

Tupac, there is literally nothing preventing a vast array of genes that produce extremely toxic things from arising in corn, wheat, or soybeans or any other such thing through natural means.

I have already acknowledged that GM foods could be safer.
But how will we know?

there is literally no way to prove any such thing so complex as a foodstuff to be 'safe'. None. It cannot be done because you can't prove a negative. All you can do is prove it is not identifiably unsafe, which is NOT the same thing. You are asking us to prove there is no God and saying 'there must be a god then!' when we say that it cannot be done. We have been diligent in trying to prove an unsafety, and have failed so miserably that the null hypothesis remains: that there is no such unsafety. The only sane, rational position to be held until better evidence comes along is that the current evidence is good enough. That is not to say 'don't keep looking' but rather to say 'keep looking while accepting the apparent in practice'

For reference, this is what the entirety of Internet security, passwords, finance, secure radio communications and and large swaths of ethics are built on. This willingness to assume is why we have bravel sallied forth with cellphones. We assume P does not equal NP and that things that not everything easy to confirm is easy to produce. We don't know and we could very well be wrong. But we do it anyway, because not doing it would result in nothing being done. Likewise with GM we don't, and can't really know it's 100% safe. But it's safer than not doing anything.

 

[Axulus]

Typical, the anti-science crowd doesn't understand that natural selection does not favor us. It favors the organism being selected.

Tupac, there is literally nothing preventing a vast array of genes that produce extremely toxic things from arising in corn, wheat, or soybeans or any other such thing through natural means.

I have already acknowledged that GM foods could be safer.
But how will we know?

Sigh....as I have mentioned numerous times. We need to test, not merely assume that GMO technology isn't flawed in some way we don't understand.
We need to test this with science.
Aparently wanting something tested scientifically rather than assuming we know the answer with testing makes a person "anti science".

thief of fire, is that you?