Support GMO foods

[tupac chopra]

More precise, but not safer. You can bleat on about it being more "precise" but until you actually do long term tests you can say it's safer.
Only when you do the actual tests will you know if it's more "precise" in any helpful way. This is called science.
Only then will you know if the unintended consequences through GMO methods are better or worse in terms of health than those of other methods.
I know you want to assume this is the case, but assuming like that is not science

Part of the problem here: You're after the impossible.

You can't prove something is safe. All you can do is show that there's no observed harm at some confidence level. .

But if we never do the long term tests we can't even show that.

 

[tupac chopra]

Why wouldn't any curious open minded person want to see what happens over the long term rather than merely over the short term?
Some health problems wont become evident in a short term study. Do we just pretend these don't exist?

If the anti-GMO campaign follows the pattern of the other anti-science,

Testing things to gain knowledge is not anti-science.
Thinking you know and therefore arguing you don't even need to do a test is anti-science.

Those campaigns aren't called anti-science because they argued for or against a science methodology, for example, your repeated chant for more testing. They are called anti-science because, like your anti-science, anti-GMO campaign, they opposed the accumulated judgement of the existing science on the subject.

Not so http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/ne...u-science-adviser-anne-glover-skewered-on-bbc

The former EU chief scientific adviser (CSA) Anne Glover has been all over the media in the past couple of days. She is accusing environmental groups, including GMWatch, of “fabricating” claims in order to get the post of CSA scrapped and of ignoring scientific evidence in pursuit of ideology.

But an interview with BBC’s Hard Talk, Glover is skewered over her claim that there is a scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods and crops (which she takes the opportunity to repeat). The interviewer, Zeinab Badawi, comes back at Glover by citing the statement, “No consensus on GMO safety”, signed by over 300 scientists and recently published by a peer-reviewed journal. Badawi quotes Dr Belinda Martineau, one of the signatories and a developer of the GM Flavr Savr tomato, as saying, “I wholeheartedly support this thorough, thoughtful and professional statement describing the lack of scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered crops and organisms.” Badawi says, “There is clearly not a scientific consensus in the scientific community.”

 

[Jarhyn]

Part of the problem here: You're after the impossible.

You can't prove something is safe. All you can do is show that there's no observed harm at some confidence level. .

But if we never do the long term tests we can't even show that.

And if you don't do long term studying on gay marriage and same-sex child rearing, you'll never know if it's safe.
And if you don't do long term studying on MMR vaccine you'll never know if it is safe.
And if you don't do long term studying on _______ you'll never know if it's safe.

Repeat this formula on anything a Luddite fears. When deciding between a potentially unsafe thing that MIGHT cause minor digestive problems from eating a thing from 100x normal consumption levels, and absolutely certain, deadly problems like malnutrition, I choose the minor problem for now. Our rhetoric does not exist in a vacuum. It feeds fears of benign GMOs like golden rice, and anti-acrylamide potatoes in the rest of the world where education is scarce.

Use, eat, and plant GM crops. Let snake oil peddlers buy their whole foods organic woo. Do more studies, nice, long term government studies done by people not interested one way or the other. But don't come Down on GM with labels that will do nothing but confirm a bias for the woo-ists or implant one in the rest of us until the verdict has been peer reviewed without substantial objection, and well replicated.

 

[tupac chopra]

But if we never do the long term tests we can't even show that.

And if you don't do long term studying on gay marriage and same-sex child rearing, you'll never know if it's safe.
And if you don't do long term studying on MMR vaccine you'll never know if it is safe.
And if you don't do long term studying on _______ you'll never know if it's safe.
.

..Science teaches us that knowledge comes by hypothesis and experiment.
Religion teaches us knowledge comes from revelation.

Some religious people don't eat pigs because they think they are "unclean".

Some religious people think that being gay is unhealthy.
They think that god told them this, and that is all the information they need.

The GMO approach is like the religious approach. No need to test because Monsanto say it's safe

 

[AdamWho]

I have spent the majority of my online time over the last couple years debunking anti-GMO conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

I would argue that it is one of the most important and interesting areas for scientific based skepticism out there mostly because there are many who claim skepticism (because they are non-religious and on the political left) who are never-the-less duped by anti-GMO conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

 

[tupac chopra]

I have spent the majority of my online time over the last couple years debunking anti-GMO conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

I would argue that it is one of the most important and interesting areas for scientific based skepticism out there mostly because there are many who claim skepticism (because they are non-religious and on the political left) who are never-the-less duped by anti-GMO conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

I agree with you. We should do long term tests to see what results we get.

 

[bilby]

"We have a lot to learn"; "more testing is required"; "Results so far are inconclusive"; "Not enough testing has been done"...

Essentially, what the anti-GMO crowd are arguing is NOT that GMOs are harmful - they have no evidence to support that claim - .

We have reason to think it could be true.
That evidence is that the only long term test on Monsanto corn was inconclusive.

But...wait for it......without doing the tests we don't have evidence either way. D'uh.

Indeed. But instead of doing the testing, you are busy campaigning for restrictions on GMOs on the basis of your absence of knowledge.

That's just stupid.

I don't have evidence either way that there is a dragon in my neighbours garage. Should I buy a fire extinguisher, and insist that my neighbours do the same, while bitching about how the government hasn't looked in my neighbour's garage for dragons, and how the guys who built the garage cared only about profits; or should I go take a look?

 

[bilby]

Part of the problem here: You're after the impossible.

You can't prove something is safe. All you can do is show that there's no observed harm at some confidence level. .

But if we never do the long term tests we can't even show that.

Then why don't you get on with it? You want tests? Do tests. Or pay someone who is qualified to do them for you.

There is no point getting Monsanto to do them - you have made it crystal clear that you wouldn't accept their results.

I think you would be wasting your time and money; but that's your choice. Just don't expect me to waste mine.

 

[tupac chopra]

We have reason to think it could be true.
That evidence is that the only long term test on Monsanto corn was inconclusive.

But...wait for it......without doing the tests we don't have evidence either way. D'uh.

Indeed. But instead of doing the testing, you are busy campaigning for restrictions on GMOs on the basis of your absence of knowledge.

That's just stupid.

I don't have evidence either way that there is a dragon in my neighbours garage. Should I buy a fire extinguisher, and insist that my neighbours do the same, while bitching about how the government hasn't looked in my neighbour's garage for dragons, and how the guys who built the garage cared only about profits; or should I go take a look?

You could ask your neighbour. Though it sounds like you don't trust him. Maybe he put Agent Orange on your tulips?
You should ask him for dinner. Have beer with him

 

[bilby]

Indeed. But instead of doing the testing, you are busy campaigning for restrictions on GMOs on the basis of your absence of knowledge.

That's just stupid.

I don't have evidence either way that there is a dragon in my neighbours garage. Should I buy a fire extinguisher, and insist that my neighbours do the same, while bitching about how the government hasn't looked in my neighbour's garage for dragons, and how the guys who built the garage cared only about profits; or should I go take a look?

You could ask your neighbour. Though it sounds like you don't trust him. Maybe he put Agent Orange on your tulips?
You should ask him for dinner. Have beer with him

Sounds like a good plan; when are you going to go have a beer with the guys from Monsanto? There is a serious trust issue there; you should work on that.

 

[tupac chopra]

You could ask your neighbour. Though it sounds like you don't trust him. Maybe he put Agent Orange on your tulips?
You should ask him for dinner. Have beer with him

Sounds like a good plan; when are you going to go have a beer with the guys from Monsanto? There is a serious trust issue there; you should work on that.

I'd love to. I'm hoping Togo will introduce me.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?3933-Support-GMO-foods&p=119770&viewfull=1#post119770

I've met scientists working for Monsanto on GMO foods who prefer to avoid GMO foods. Presumably they have some idea what they're talking about.

As long as the beer is cold though.

 

[Axulus]

Sounds like a good plan; when are you going to go have a beer with the guys from Monsanto? There is a serious trust issue there; you should work on that.

I'd love to. I'm hoping Togo will introduce me.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?3933-Support-GMO-foods&p=119770&viewfull=1#post119770

I've met scientists working for Monsanto on GMO foods who prefer to avoid GMO foods. Presumably they have some idea what they're talking about.

As long as the beer is cold though.

Are they kind of like the former pharmaceutical employee who is against vaccines?

Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/manu.htm

 

[arkirk]

Your argument is a classic lesson in Ad Hom 101.

Only those hopelessly deluded by their ideology consider being asked to support their claims as an ad-hominem.

This type of argument was used for cigarettes, asbestos, leaded gas and paint, thalidomide, DDT, hexachloraphene, etc. etc. etc. and to what end?

Well, in each of those cases, people went out and demonstrated that the product in question was harmful; and its use was subsequently restricted or banned. That's exactly how the system is meant to work; and for every one of the products in your list, there were dozens of equally novel but harmless products, which we still use to this day.

You are saying, unless we have the money to make something apparent we should just shut up and go away, so we can experience the harm en masse.

Pretty much, yes. There are plenty of you; it wouldn't cost much if you all chipped in. So if you want to ban GMOs (or any other technology), the answer is simple - demonstrate harm. If there is no 'apparent' harm, then 'harm en-masse' is not on the table. People have been eating GMOs for two decades. 'Harm en-masse' has not materialised; any harm there may be would have to be very subtle to have gone unnoticed at this stage.

I feel you are trusting, not crews of scientists, but Monsanto lobbies and their shills in government...people with a vested interest in regulatory inaction, who frankly feel just as you have come to feel.

Frankly, I don't give a rats arse who you 'feel I am trusting'. I am trusting nobody at all - I am simply asking those who oppose GMOs to demonstrate that they have a case. I am sure as shit not going to trust anyone who says they might have a case, but that they have no evidence.

What you are not understanding is that I am in favor of GMO investigations of new applications that stand alone and can be studied.

So fund such investigations. Chip in a few bucks each, along with all the other anti-GMO activists, and prove that you have a point.

Currently funded GMO research is loaded with concomitant goals which really are experimental engineering efforts to consolidate the chemical industry's massive control of agriculture.

If by this you mean that the people who fund research tend to seek answers to the questions they have, rather than the questions you think they should have, then you are absolutely right. So what? If you have questions that are not being answered by the current research, fund some new research to answer your questions. Or do the research yourself. Nobody will stop you.

We are not seeing any result in terms of anything in terms of immunity on plants excepting resistance to a VERY few BRAND NAME HERBICIDE. Such research is done in the interest of profit and NOT TO INFORM THE PUBLIC.

Yes. So? It would be nice if corporations did pure research more often; but such pure research as they do is entirely at their own whim; they don't care what you want, and nor should they. When you go to buy something, you might look at a few possible purchases, check the prices in different stores, compare the features each item has, and use that research to make a decision. Should I lambast you for doing this research purely for your own purposes, with no intent to INFORM THE PUBLIC?

You claim people who want real answers they can trust should get into our laboratories and fund and do the research...or STFU.

Indeed I do. And they should.

This is an unrealistic and disingenuous demand.

Why? You want something, you pay for it. You are the one with a claim - that GMOs are dangerous. You need to prove it. Or to accept that the rest of us don't care for your unsupported claims.

We have essentially the same problem with big pharma we have with Monsanto..."Trust us! It's making us lots of money and your belly is full...so just shut up!" This is hardly acceptable.

Indeed, but that's not actually what anyone is saying. You don't have to trust anyone. You just have to do your own research. Given that you wouldn't trust the results if they came from Monsanto funded research, there really isn't any other choice - the research needs to be independently funded - by the people who have a claim to test. You claim that GMOs are harmful. Prove it or STFU.

It's the same argument with any other unsupported claim. If you claimed that God wants me not to eat pork - prove it or STFU. If you claim that you have a unicorn in your garage - prove it or STFU. If you claim that sacrificing a virgin at the full moon will bring an abundant harvest - prove it or STFU.

It is not up to Monsanto to do your homework; and you wouldn't accept the results of any testing they did anyway.

You want testing - do some testing.

You absolutely know this is beyond the means of the average citizen. Monsanto should not be trusted...unless you are a corporate IDIOT! More ridiculous demands...Your actual approach to this question is AD HOM , go away, fund things with money we don't have, but mainly YOUR POSITION IF ONE OF UNQUESTIONING LOYALTY AND TRUST IN MONSANTO...THE SAME AS CLARENCE THOMAS.

Activists have only recently just asked that these GMO products be labeled so it might be possible to gather some statistical data on them. To measure the effects of GMO on people you have to have a control group you know does not consume them and another group you know consumes them. So far it doesn't look so hot for a bunch of rats in Scotland. Maybe it is coming to YOUR HOME SOON. I would like you to be able to get all the GMO food you wish and me not get any. I don't think that is possible at this time however because labeling has not been required. In a market that has hidden GMO products, how would a population conclude they were harmless even if the entire population experienced say an epidemic of adult onset diabetes...which we are experiencing by the way.

 

[Togo]

Sounds like a good plan; when are you going to go have a beer with the guys from Monsanto? There is a serious trust issue there; you should work on that.

I'd love to. I'm hoping Togo will introduce me.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?3933-Support-GMO-foods&p=119770&viewfull=1#post119770

I've met scientists working for Monsanto on GMO foods who prefer to avoid GMO foods. Presumably they have some idea what they're talking about.

As long as the beer is cold though.

I don't know where you're based exactly. One still lives in Seattle, the other moved to North London. The latter would be easier for me, obviously. You won't catch him drinking beer though, since he's a serious wine fancier.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Eddie, the science seems to be very simple.

Science always "seems" to be very simple, but it very rarely is. Personally I'd rather see some conclusive data collected from its actual usage in that pursuit, and NOT from the assorted press-releases of its actual inventors.

The science can not be more conclusive.

Of course it could: IF THERE WAS ACTUAL DATA.

There isn't any. Therefore, it is speculation. There are no obvious problems with that speculative premise, so it's a very plausible notion.

But science is about EVIDENCE, not plausibility.

In the third world, the political objections are the same diverse hysterical swath of conspiracist myths as in the first world, not just about excessive fears over patent abuse...

Not just. But primarily.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You could ask your neighbour. Though it sounds like you don't trust him. Maybe he put Agent Orange on your tulips?
You should ask him for dinner. Have beer with him

Sounds like a good plan; when are you going to go have a beer with the guys from Monsanto? There is a serious trust issue there; you should work on that.

There's no specific reason anyone needs to trust Monsanto. Let the FDA and/or the USDA perform long-term studies on GMOs to assess the biological and ecological effects so we know FOR SURE what we're dealing with. Then we don't HAVE to trust anything but the science.

Short of a ban (which I do not support) the labeling issue is actually very silly. We already have laws that require labels to be as accurate as possible; your Pepsi lists among its ingredients "high fructose corn syrup" which beverage manufacturers cannot list to as simply "sugar." It could and should be as simple as a requirement to specify whether or not ingredients are derived from GMO stocks.

"Ingredients: Freekah (roasted green wheat), Whole Grain Quinoa, Roasted Peanuts, Brown Rice, Golden Rice (genetically modified Oryza Sativa), Parboiled Red Rice...."
Let the hipster consumer say "Genetically modified? No thank you."

 

[KeepTalking]

I'd love to. I'm hoping Togo will introduce me.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?3933-Support-GMO-foods&p=119770&viewfull=1#post119770

I've met scientists working for Monsanto on GMO foods who prefer to avoid GMO foods. Presumably they have some idea what they're talking about.

As long as the beer is cold though.

I don't know where you're based exactly. One still lives in Seattle, the other moved to North London. The latter would be easier for me, obviously. You won't catch him drinking beer though, since he's a serious wine fancier.

Tupac, if you are ever in St. Louis, send me a message, I might be able to accommodate you. I actually work for Monsanto (which is why I have been reluctant to wade into this discussion so far), and although I am not on the science side of things, I do help to develop the software the scientists use when running their breeding and biotech trials, so I work with the scientists in that capacity. It shouldn't be that hard to get one or two to meet up over a beer and educate you on their work (especially if you are buying). For the record, no one I know who works for Monsanto has any problem with consuming GMOs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your argument is a classic lesson in Ad Hom 101. This type of argument was used for cigarettes, asbestos, leaded gas and paint, thalidomide, DDT, hexachloraphene, etc. etc. etc. and to what end? You are saying, unless we have the money to make something apparent we should just shut up and go away, so we can experience the harm en masse. I feel you are trusting, not crews of scientists, but Monsanto lobbies and their shills in government...people with a vested interest in regulatory inaction, who frankly feel just as you have come to feel.

I don't recall hexachloraphene, all the others involve cases that once the risk was shown they were either immediately pulled (although, note that thalidomide is on the market for a couple of uses. You be darn careful about pregnancy but it does have legitimate use. Also, it's suspected that it might not ever have been an issue in the first place, but rather the dirty deeds came from it's stereoisomer which the manufacturing technology of the time couldn't eliminate) or at least started on the way out. Of course there was a lot of foot-dragging about how big the risk was but the scientific community recognized the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Short of a ban (which I do not support) the labeling issue is actually very silly. We already have laws that require labels to be as accurate as possible; your Pepsi lists among its ingredients "high fructose corn syrup" which beverage manufacturers cannot list to as simply "sugar." It could and should be as simple as a requirement to specify whether or not ingredients are derived from GMO stocks.

"Ingredients: Freekah (roasted green wheat), Whole Grain Quinoa, Roasted Peanuts, Brown Rice, Golden Rice (genetically modified Oryza Sativa), Parboiled Red Rice...."
Let the hipster consumer say "Genetically modified? No thank you."

And that causes huge logistics costs that you want the rest of us to bear even though we don't care about whether it's GMO or not.

Furthermore, "(genetically modified Oryza Sativa)" is pure scare tactics. "Golden Rice" is enough for information purposes.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Short of a ban (which I do not support) the labeling issue is actually very silly. We already have laws that require labels to be as accurate as possible; your Pepsi lists among its ingredients "high fructose corn syrup" which beverage manufacturers cannot list to as simply "sugar." It could and should be as simple as a requirement to specify whether or not ingredients are derived from GMO stocks.

"Ingredients: Freekah (roasted green wheat), Whole Grain Quinoa, Roasted Peanuts, Brown Rice, Golden Rice (genetically modified Oryza Sativa), Parboiled Red Rice...."
Let the hipster consumer say "Genetically modified? No thank you."

And that causes huge logistics costs that you want the rest of us to bear even though we don't care about whether it's GMO or not.

Furthermore, "(genetically modified Oryza Sativa)" is pure scare tactics. "Golden Rice" is enough for information purposes.

No, ... just no.

Gimme the numbers on these "huge logistics costs"
Lots of people pay the cost of things they don't care about. Like EVERBODY.
Golden Rice being enough for you says what exactly about EVERYBODY ELSE or do our opinions not matter just your one?