Support GMO foods

[arkirk]

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?

GMO has a lot of angles to it. Testing is needed. We need to have ALL THIS STUFF LABELED so we know how much exposure we are getting to GMO. As I have said earlier also...lack of labeling makes statistical monitoring nearly impossible, so the data on the human guinea pigs becomes increasingly difficult to come by.

 

[Jarhyn]

thief of fire, is that you?

GMO has a lot of angles to it. Testing is needed. We need to have ALL THIS STUFF LABELED so we know how much exposure we are getting to GMO. As I have said earlier also...lack of labeling makes statistical monitoring nearly impossible, so the data on the human guinea pigs becomes increasingly difficult to come by.

No. If suddenly someone told you you were getting exposure to something, and were required to do it BY LAW, the default assumption is 'it's bad'. You just admitted we do not know if it is bad, though what we do know is that it's not bad so far as we can tell. Test. Research. But pretty much everything in the store that isn't in the organically section contains GMO, if there exists a GM variant. Grain elevators are expensive infrastructure. People share them, putting X in, and taking X out, though the individual grain isn't the same shit they put in. This means that anywhere we have Someone not vested in using 'organic only' elevators, it's not going to be. period.

 

[ApostateAbe]

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?

Those people will probably never be satisfied with any evidence. You should probably just ignore them.

 

[tupac chopra]

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'. .

Agreed.
What we can say is that with for example GM corn.
There has only been one long term test. This test was inconclusive. It leant towards the corn possibly being harmful.

So, should we
1)Do another long term study.
2) Ignore it and hope that it isn't harmful

- - - Updated - - -

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?

Those people will probably never be satisfied with any evidence. You should probably just ignore them.

So you want to promote GM food but aren't willing to read the studies you promote in defence of GM food?

 

[laughing dog]

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

No, they don't. Most of the food sold in the grocery stores near me have no labels about GMO or non-GMO. Since that labelling is voluntary, one cannot KNOW the cause of the lack of a label.

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".

Since your argument is based on a false premise.

 

[Jarhyn]

there is literally no way to prove any such thing so complex as a foodstuff to be 'safe'. .

Agreed.
What we can say is that with for example GM corn.
There has only been one long term test. This test was inconclusive. It leant towards the corn possibly being harmful.

So, should we
1)Do another long term study.
2) Ignore it and hope that it isn't harmful

- - - Updated - - -

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?

Those people will probably never be satisfied with any evidence. You should probably just ignore them.

So you want to promote GM food but aren't willing to read the studies you promote in defence of GM food?

False dichotomy. We do more studies while eating the corn.

 

[tupac chopra]

False dichotomy. We do more studies while eating the corn.

So you are saying we should do the studies that we have not done?
I just want to clear this up.

Because the FDA is saying we don't need to do more studies on those things that have been approved, but you do not agree and say we should do more studies on the very food that the FDA has approved?
Is that right?

 

[Jarhyn]

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

No, they don't. Most of the food sold in the grocery stores near me have no labels about GMO or non-GMO. Since that labelling is voluntary, one cannot KNOW the cause of the lack of a label.

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".

Since your argument is based on a false premise.

I don't know what bizarro world you live I , but in the real world, every super market I've been for the last 10 years has had aisles, whole parts of the store with nothing but certified non-GM foods, and organic blue corn chips. Whole foods is a store with nothing BUT that.

- - - Updated - - -

False dichotomy. We do more studies while eating the corn.

So you are saying we should do the studies that we have not done?

read my post. It is in plain English, and blessedly all the words I needed to use already existed without unwanted sentiment. There are a few kinds of GM corn, though. You'll have to be more specific. If you mean the kind of corn that is resistant to glyphosate, then all you have to ask is what do those genes produce. The answer to that may surprise you, but in fact they produce clorophyll that is resistant to glyphosate. As to the glyphosate itself, we've been using THAT for going on about 45 years. it's been studied a million ways from Sunday and it's safer than pretty much anything else that's been marketed.

If you mean BT corn, you have to ask a very serious question: how much do you like bees, how much do you like corn? Because there are few commercially viable pest control substances out there that are mostly benign to people. The reason it is benign is that it is generally activated by alkaline (basic) substances. Our bodies are almost 100% acidic. Our non-insect biochemistry makes the BT protein remain mostly inert. You can confirm this by eating BT corn and not having your guts immediately melt out of your ass. The reason I bring up bees is that they don't get nailed by BT the way eat worms do. Instead, the are damaged by nicotine and it's analogs. It gives them brain damage. You know what one of the primary 'organic' pesticides used is? Nicotine. Which is a known carcinogen. BT usage lets us not use neonicotinoids on the same scale. Granted, many farmers use both, but they are fools. The two primary traits are the BT trait, and the glyphosate resistance. We used BT toxin before the GM, and we used glyphosate for 40 years. The only difference is a tiny bit of machinery in the cells of the plants to produce those things we were already eating, which are about as inert in us as any organic molecule CAN be. We know all the in-between steps, all the steps between DNA and BT, and all the chemistry between DNA and glyphosate resistance. None of the byproducts of that chemical reaction are unknown. There have been many many studies on the safety of glyphosate and they've all come to the obvious conclusion: it's safer than crayons.

The question is, is BT toxin also safer than crayons? According to research done on it, the initial answers have all been 'yes, CRY BT is safer than crayons.'

Shut up and eat your corn and potatoes.

 

[tupac chopra]

read my post. It is in plain English, and blessedly all the words I needed to use already existed without unwanted sentiment.

I'm asking you to clear up something you wrote that was ambiguous.
When you say "we should do more studies", what do you mean?

Are you saying we should do more studies on already approved foods or not?

 

[arkirk]

No, they don't. Most of the food sold in the grocery stores near me have no labels about GMO or non-GMO. Since that labelling is voluntary, one cannot KNOW the cause of the lack of a label.

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".

Since your argument is based on a false premise.

I don't know what bizarro world you live I , but in the real world, every super market I've been for the last 10 years has had aisles, whole parts of the store with nothing but certified non-GM foods, and organic blue corn chips. Whole foods is a store with nothing BUT that.

- - - Updated - - -

False dichotomy. We do more studies while eating the corn.

So you are saying we should do the studies that we have not done?

read my post. It is in plain English, and blessedly all the words I needed to use already existed without unwanted sentiment.

I don't know if you have actually been to a whole foods store, but the one I went to did not have all that posting of non GMO and it clearly was a store for people with a lot of money to spend on food...in fact much more money than the average man makes. The studies at the Rowlett Institute in Aberdeen Scotland are very interesting indeed. Their implications are troubling. You can carry on and advocate using "untested" technologies instead of untampered with genetic plants and learn in the future about such things as the precancerous lesions in the test rats with only 10 days exposure to the stuff...and also the death of the natural predators to aphids (lady bugs) and perhaps whatever happens to you and your fellow countrymen by advocating ignorance, but I think it makes no sense to do so...and demonstrates a lack of social conscience.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, they don't. Most of the food sold in the grocery stores near me have no labels about GMO or non-GMO. Since that labelling is voluntary, one cannot KNOW the cause of the lack of a label.

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".

Since your argument is based on a false premise.

I don't know what bizarro world you live I , but in the real world, every super market I've been for the last 10 years has had aisles, whole parts of the store with nothing but certified non-GM foods, and organic blue corn chips. Whole foods is a store with nothing BUT that.

- - - Updated - - -

False dichotomy. We do more studies while eating the corn.

So you are saying we should do the studies that we have not done?

read my post. It is in plain English, and blessedly all the words I needed to use already existed without unwanted sentiment.

I don't know if you have actually been to a whole foods store, but the one I went to did not have all that posting of non GMO and it clearly was a store for people with a lot of money to spend on food...in fact much more money than the average man makes. The studies at the Rowlett Institute in Aberdeen Scotland are very interesting indeed. Their implications are troubling. You can carry on and advocate using "untested" technologies instead of untampered with genetic plants and learn in the future about such things as the precancerous lesions in the test rats with only 10 days exposure to the stuff...and also the death of the natural predators to aphids (lady bugs) and perhaps whatever happens to you and your fellow countrymen by advocating ignorance, but I think it makes no sense to do so...and demonstrates a lack of social conscience.

untested? Glyphosate has been more thoroughly tested than pretty much all 'organic' herbicides combined. It is effective at killing weeds, highly nontoxic to animals, and has been in the food supply for longer than I've been alive. BT has been in use as a pesticide for 90 years. It's less studied perhaps only because it's older; it was grandfathered in past most other pesticides. It's been in the world and in the wild for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. If there was a problem with it, we'd see an easily tracked history of cases starting in 1920 or so.

Both of these things are safe as crayons and they're the only thing we brought into the corn's genome. So tell me what mechanism could possibly be producing the kind of toxicity that would warrant making food so much harder to make? Perhaps you can tell me what part of the carrot creates carcinogens? Because that's where the traits of golden rice came from. Maybe we should be on the lookout for cancer in people who eat carrots!

You quote Serlini. I read his methods. His methods could prove nicotine doesn't cause cancer. Or that titanium bone pins do.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know what bizarro world you live I , but in the real world, every super market I've been for the last 10 years has had aisles, whole parts of the store with nothing but certified non-GM foods, and organic blue corn chips. Whole foods is a store with nothing BUT that.

Fact: all grocery stores are not whole food stores. Fact: one or two aisles of "whole foods" do not constituted most of the aisles in a grocery store nor most of the food SOLD in a grocery store. Finally, this type of labeling is voluntary (which means that is not mandated). So, one cannot KNOW the cause of a lack of a label on the food. Perhaps the ingestion of GMO food inhibits reasoning faculties?

 

[arkirk]

No, they don't. Most of the food sold in the grocery stores near me have no labels about GMO or non-GMO. Since that labelling is voluntary, one cannot KNOW the cause of the lack of a label.

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".

Since your argument is based on a false premise.

I don't know what bizarro world you live I , but in the real world, every super market I've been for the last 10 years has had aisles, whole parts of the store with nothing but certified non-GM foods, and organic blue corn chips. Whole foods is a store with nothing BUT that.

- - - Updated - - -

False dichotomy. We do more studies while eating the corn.

So you are saying we should do the studies that we have not done?

read my post. It is in plain English, and blessedly all the words I needed to use already existed without unwanted sentiment.

I don't know if you have actually been to a whole foods store, but the one I went to did not have all that posting of non GMO and it clearly was a store for people with a lot of money to spend on food...in fact much more money than the average man makes. The studies at the Rowlett Institute in Aberdeen Scotland are very interesting indeed. Their implications are troubling. You can carry on and advocate using "untested" technologies instead of untampered with genetic plants and learn in the future about such things as the precancerous lesions in the test rats with only 10 days exposure to the stuff...and also the death of the natural predators to aphids (lady bugs) and perhaps whatever happens to you and your fellow countrymen by advocating ignorance, but I think it makes no sense to do so...and demonstrates a lack of social conscience.

untested? Glyphosate has been more thoroughly tested than pretty much all 'organic' herbicides combined. It is effective at killing weeds, highly nontoxic to animals, and has been in the food supply for longer than I've been alive. BT has been in use as a pesticide for 90 years. It's less studied perhaps only because it's older; it was grandfathered in past most other pesticides. It's been in the world and in the wild for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. If there was a problem with it, we'd see an easily tracked history of cases starting in 1920 or so.

Both of these things are safe as crayons and they're the only thing we brought into the corn's genome. So tell me what mechanism could possibly be producing the kind of toxicity that would warrant making food so much harder to make? Perhaps you can tell me what part of the carrot creates carcinogens? Because that's where the traits of golden rice came from. Maybe we should be on the lookout for cancer in people who eat carrots!

You quote Serlini. I read his methods. His methods could prove nicotine doesn't cause cancer. Or that titanium bone pins do.

Look up Rowlett Institute GMO on Google. There are a couple of videos where the head of the operation explained it was not the pesticide that caused the problems. It was the implanted genes and they replicated in the creature...insects and mammals who consumed the product. You are failing to recognize the complexity of what is being done here and the complexity of the study...about 3 million dollars worth of study...A study not done in the U.S. though thoroughly peer reviewed in Europe. My information did not come from Serlini.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, they don't. Most of the food sold in the grocery stores near me have no labels about GMO or non-GMO. Since that labelling is voluntary, one cannot KNOW the cause of the lack of a label.

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".

Since your argument is based on a false premise.

I don't know what bizarro world you live I , but in the real world, every super market I've been for the last 10 years has had aisles, whole parts of the store with nothing but certified non-GM foods, and organic blue corn chips. Whole foods is a store with nothing BUT that.

- - - Updated - - -

False dichotomy. We do more studies while eating the corn.

So you are saying we should do the studies that we have not done?

read my post. It is in plain English, and blessedly all the words I needed to use already existed without unwanted sentiment.

I don't know if you have actually been to a whole foods store, but the one I went to did not have all that posting of non GMO and it clearly was a store for people with a lot of money to spend on food...in fact much more money than the average man makes. The studies at the Rowlett Institute in Aberdeen Scotland are very interesting indeed. Their implications are troubling. You can carry on and advocate using "untested" technologies instead of untampered with genetic plants and learn in the future about such things as the precancerous lesions in the test rats with only 10 days exposure to the stuff...and also the death of the natural predators to aphids (lady bugs) and perhaps whatever happens to you and your fellow countrymen by advocating ignorance, but I think it makes no sense to do so...and demonstrates a lack of social conscience.

untested? Glyphosate has been more thoroughly tested than pretty much all 'organic' herbicides combined. It is effective at killing weeds, highly nontoxic to animals, and has been in the food supply for longer than I've been alive. BT has been in use as a pesticide for 90 years. It's less studied perhaps only because it's older; it was grandfathered in past most other pesticides. It's been in the world and in the wild for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. If there was a problem with it, we'd see an easily tracked history of cases starting in 1920 or so.

Both of these things are safe as crayons and they're the only thing we brought into the corn's genome. So tell me what mechanism could possibly be producing the kind of toxicity that would warrant making food so much harder to make? Perhaps you can tell me what part of the carrot creates carcinogens? Because that's where the traits of golden rice came from. Maybe we should be on the lookout for cancer in people who eat carrots!

You quote Serlini. I read his methods. His methods could prove nicotine doesn't cause cancer. Or that titanium bone pins do.

Look up Rowlett Institute GMO on Google. There are a couple of videos where the head of the operation explained it was not the pesticide that caused the problems. It was the implanted genes and they replicated in the creature...insects and mammals who consumed the product. You are failing to recognize the complexity of what is being done here and the complexity of the study...about 3 million dollars worth of study...A study not done in the U.S. though thoroughly peer reviewed in Europe. My information did not come from Serlini.

So you're quoting Pusztai. There was in my reading no indication that it was the genes replicating in the creature; a co-author of the paper suggested it could very well be the result of the cauliflower mosaic virus that caused an unintended mutation in the potato which produced a heat-unstable byproduct, but that's pure speculation. Regardless, they did not find the results in cooked potato, nor did they manage to isolate any such "strange" protein. There's no biological mechanism for that to even happen (genetic replication outside the cell body), let alone conclude that it was the trait that caused it. Even when it was published, the editors made certain to also publish a critical review of the study, to indicate that it should be looked at with skepticism. Since then, various review boards have blasted the study. Pusztai himself has been on an anti-GMO tour, reaping money from speaking to woo-peddlers. I can't possibly imagine what might have driven him to publish such crap.

I fully realize exactly what is being done to the genes to produce a genetic modification. I am guessing I know significantly more than you do about the biological mechanisms of protein synthesis from DNA. We're also not even talking about BT trait, RR trait, or beta-carotene trait. And of course it's going to fuck with insects! That's the fucking point of GNA protein.

Genetic modification is generally done with precision. Virus DNA or RNA is built from a sequenced pathogen which tracks and either inserts, replaces, or deletes a specific gene at a specific part of the target germ's chromosomes. They then look at the adult organism to confirm that the gene was inserted at the correct location without "missing", and that all the neighboring DNA is still there. Only after they achieve a successful insertion without collateral damage is the strain allowed to be cloned into additional specimens. It's not that hard to understand

 

[tupac chopra]

Here is what Pusztai had to say

I think the reason is not the GNA lectin itself, but the technique. Probably the CaMV (Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, a promoter used to switch on the introduced gene) had a part in it. It's a problematic thing.

The other problem is the positioning of the inserted gene. Our experiment showed up how imprecise the technique is, because we had two GM potatoes, both contained GNA lectin, and both came from the same pot. They were both grown in greenhouses or in fields in tunnels under identical conditions and at the same time. Yet they came out different. The only explanation is that the incorporation of the transgene [inserted gene] into the host genome happened at two different places. And the effect on the genome was different.

These positioning effects are not simple to predict. Think of William Tell shooting an arrow at a target. Now put a blindfold on the man doing the shooting and that's the reality of the genetic engineer when he's doing a gene insertion. He has no idea where the transgene will land in the recipient genome.

Meanwhile, while we are all arguing in Britain, scientists in other countries are getting on with the job. There are two new papers by Japanese scientists, on GM rice and GM soya. They say that the positioning effect has to be taken into consideration because we don't know which genes in the host organism the inserted genes will make silent or reactivate. It is clear from their evidence that some of the changes cannot be predicted on the basis of the gene insertion.​

 

[tupac chopra]

I can't possibly imagine what might have driven him to publish such crap.

Maybe you don't want to understand why? Here again is what Pusztai had to say.

We had two transgenic lines of potato produced from the same gene insertion and the same growing conditions; we grew them together along with the parent plant. With our two lines of potato, which should have been substantially equivalent to each other, we found that one of the lines contained 20% less protein than the other. So the two lines were not substantially equivalent to each other. But we also found that these two lines were not substantially equivalent to their parent. This could not be predicted. It demonstrates that the unpredictability is inherent in the GM process on a case by case basis ”” and also at the level of every single GM plant created.​

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm just going to point out, as others certainly have, that the "GMOs will eliminate world hunger" angle is nothing more than PR bullshit. GMOs are used to increase productivity in mature markets where an intact legal system can maintain controls on their cultivation and prevent those GMO strains from being misappropriated by local farmers; they are not and will never be used to feed the third world, because doing so creates the risk of those modified foods falling into the hands of poor farmers who will not pay royalties to Monsanto and do not have a government that will bother making them.

It is PR. It is PR and it is probable. Millions of lives would be saved if they were to eat golden rice instead of white rice. This is not mere speculation. This is fact.

No, that actually IS speculation, and the data that suggests as much is far from conclusive.

It's not a question of whether or not GMOs can be made to be more nutritious or easier to grow than their natural counterparts. Obviously they can; they're DESIGNED to be.

The question is whether or not the widespread use of GMO foods IN AND OF THEMSELVES is the answer to world hunger, and whether or not that specific benefit of their cultivation outweighs the pitfalls inherent in the commercialization of a synthetic species.

Golden Rice is actually a really good example in that ONE of the PARTIAL owners of the patent -- Syngenta -- has explicitly chosen not to commercialize the strain and is using its stake the strain for humanitarian purposes. Monsanto -- who contrary to your claim ALSO own part of the patent -- has made no such commitment other than simply refraining from interfering with Syngenta's humanitarian work. Both of those decisions are apparently based on the fact that neither company believes there is a market for golden rice in the developed world and therefore have nothing much to gain by commercialization.

Do you suppose that will always be true?

And nobody would be charged royalties

Half true. In this specific instance, farmers making less than $10,000 in profit would not be charged royalties. Provided, of course, that they abide by the terms of the license agreement, which includes restrictions on price controls, distributions, cross-breeding, and strictly specifies that the seeds can only be used on a purely humanitarian basis. In details the humanitarian effort, while admirable, is mired in the complex legalease of patent litigation as the various patent owners have ALL gone out of their way to insure the control of their investment even in this venture.

And then, there's the rub: humanitarian intent notwithstanding, what do you suppose would happen if it came to light that a large group of farmers were growing golden rice without having obtained a free license from Syngenta? What, for that matter, would happen if it came to light that some of the farmers who obtained licenses were caught selling the grain across the border to neighboring countries whose governments hadn't approved the GMO deal?

Golden rice would be provided freely. But Golden Rice is opposed by the same people who oppose Monsanto..

Probably because Monsanto was one of the original distributors.

Also, the lack of proliferation of Golden Rice has less to do with political/activist opposition (of which there is very little in the developing world) and a lot more to do with local governments not really being equipped to deal with the patent situation. One of the key rules of their licensing guidelines is that the farmers can only obtain those licenses IF they have the support of their governments on a national level through an act of the legislature. Several countries have declined to take them up on this offer specifically because of fears of a huge amount of liability their agricultural sectors would be exposed to if the patent owners suddenly changed their minds and decided to charge royalties.

This is an extremely valid fear, since the license agreement itself CLEARLY allows for that. Golden rice is being licensed as a loan, NOT a gift.
Developing countries are balking primarily over the question "How do we you won't change your mind and start charging us?"
To which the inventors' answer is, essentially "Well gee, if we did that, you'd probably sue us! "

Vaccines were developed by the first world...

And were freely distributed for the good of the public health. They were NOT patented, commercialized, or distributed to health clinics under extremely tight license agreements that left open the possibility of legal action for unauthorized use.

In other words, they were GIVEN to people, because they were needed. Not licensed, not loaned.

Let me know when Syngenta starts distributing sacks of golden rice to third world, free of charge, no strings attached. I'm sure it'll be any minute now.

You should be ashamed of yourself...

Bullshit plus half truth plus personal attacks... and you call ME irrational?

If the developing world has learned ANYTHING from the past sixty years: never trust a humanitarian who comes to visit you with his lawyer.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A mature market typically means one that is stable without much growth. Agriculture in Brazil and China is growing rapidly.

I take issue with the notion that mature markets cannot experience rapid growth under changing conditions, but point taken.

Therefore, I must ask what your criteria is for "mature" market. Furthermore, by the time the non-mature markets without intellectual property protection get their shit together, many more GMO varieties will be off patent, allowing them to use those seeds free of IP issues.

And WHEN that happens, it will be a dead issue. Primarily because
1) By then any unintended health/biosphere effects of GMOs will already be apparent and farmers will either halt cultivation or they will be eradicated as an invasive species and
2) The "strings attached" patent issue -- the PRIMARY issue I'm addressing in calling out the bullshit PR push -- also ceases to be a factor. Of course, by then the original owners will have either stopped producing it and moved on to something they CAN patent, or they'll actually make good on their PR spin and start distributing the stuff free of charge and free of contracts.

We're not at that point yet. It's achievable, but it's not inevitable.

RR soybeans are not the only patent that has or will expire. It was just an example because it was pretty much the first major GMO seed introduced to the market.

Yes, and it's now being grown indigenously on a for-profit basis by local farmers, just like any other crop.

Consider that if Monsanto or DuPont discovered a new type of potato in a cave on the moon, they could only initially cash in on this discovery by growing and then selling moon potatoes from their own farms, and then could only maintain a competitive edge by making sure they had the best moon potatoes in the world (after everyone else also started growing them). This is essentially what happened with the cultivation of the ACTUAL potato in the discovery of the New World: European explorers brought them back from the Americas and they quickly became a staple food due to their high nutritional value.

In short, potatoes were the GMOs of the age of discovery.

The big difference here is the issue of control. A 16th century farmer stands NO chance of getting a knock on his door if the Spanish Empire finds out he's growing potatoes without a proper license agreement. Since this has now become true of RR Soybeans, it is reduced to a public health and ecological issue, both of which can be simply decided on its merits.

At the end of the day, the issue with GMOs isn't really even the foods themselves. It's the fact that the people who OWN them are assholes, and the public broadly suspects -- not necessarily unjustly -- that those biotech companies are not being entirely honest.

 

[tupac chopra]

False dichotomy. We do more studies while eating the corn.

You'll be happy to know that a serious long term study is underway...Largest international study into safety of GM food launched by Russian NGO

A Russian group working with scientists is set to launch what they call the world’s largest and most comprehensive long-term health study on a GM food.

The $25m three-year experiment will involve scientists testing thousands of rats which will be fed differing diets of a Monsanto GM maize and the world’s most widely-used herbicide which it it is engineered to be grown with.

So in three years we will know. Maybe sooner though. If the results start to look bad it will leak out and we might get a clue from the Monsanto share price.

 

[Axulus]

You'll be happy to know that a serious long term study is underway...Largest international study into safety of GM food launched by Russian NGO

A Russian group working with scientists is set to launch what they call the world’s largest and most comprehensive long-term health study on a GM food.

The $25m three-year experiment will involve scientists testing thousands of rats which will be fed differing diets of a Monsanto GM maize and the world’s most widely-used herbicide which it it is engineered to be grown with.

So in three years we will know. Maybe sooner though. If the results start to look bad it will leak out and we might get a clue from the Monsanto share price.

Your bias is glaring again. If Monsanto was involved in the conception and organization of such a study, you'd be up in arms about how the study is going to be a fraud and can't be trusted.

However, when it is conceived of and organized by an anti-GMO group, you call it a "serious" study:

The website of the “Factor GMO” project contains only an image* advertising its future launch on the 11th, and a contact email. The domain is registered to Elena A Sharoykina, who runs the National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS) in Russia, an NGO that campaigns against GMOs.

The NAGS has a questionable history when it comes to scientific claims about genetically engineered crops. They organized the conference where Russian scientist Irina Ermakova publicized her heavily-criticized claims that rats fed genetically engineered soy were infertile. The NAGS is also the source for a second “study”(translated) claiming that hamsters had altered sex ratios and infertility. The second one was publicized by Jeffrey Smith, who said that they also found hair growing in the mouths of these hamsters. Neither study has ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the history of producing far-reaching claims based on these science-by-press-release studies does not inspire confidence.

Lambert confirmed that NAGS, a virulently anti-GMO group, has been involved in the conception and organization of the study, but claims “the NGO – NAGS is in no way involved in the experimental part.” The GLP has pressed Lambert and Factor GMO about the details on the relationship and how the study came to be and was funded but has not received a reply.

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2...-factor-study-are-the-results-pre-determined/

Now, the study may in fact be neutral and legitimate. I don't automatically come to a conclusion without the specific details of who the scientists are and what their controls and methods are.