Support GMO foods

[Jarhyn]

And there you do it again, talking about GMOs as if it's a trait. It isn't. Until you figure out why a process can be defended from irrational luddites but why it can't honestly be attacked, why processes are necessarily application agnostic, and why only applications can in reality be bad, you're pretty much a lost cause.

I dislike Luddites not because they don't care about people, but because they don't think about the results of their actions or how to direct that caring to fruitful ends. Look at PETA. They care so much about animals. But they don't understand a great many things, so they fail to grasp the demands of darwinian/animal driven ethics, nor its relation to lamarckian/person driven ethics. They are destructive children who have no mind for consequences.

I've stated repeatedly what I want, namely individual long term studies: well controlled, government-run and government funded, and necessarily replicated, once any crop passes FDA, and that all new hybrids and traits in mass production be so tested once they hit the food supply, GMO or not. But in the mean time, we eat them, and if someone wants to go anti-vax anti-GMO Luddite mode on us all and attack the GMO mind worm agribusiness lizard men from the CIA they can rot. If they want to raise valid concerns about the genes and methods we're using to make bees immune to CCD or to attach extra limbs to ourselves or that we are using to inject cloroplasts into cows, then they can do that quite easily and happily so by joining a research team on those subjects. But attacking the idea itself of transgenics is foolish. It's irrational, and it's Ludditism.

 

[scombrid]

On the other hand, the square mile I mentioned formed by so called modern methods remains a piece of unrecovered denuded desert land and people who live down gradient from it suffer flash floods as a result...and also lowered water in their wells. And it now produces zero jojoba.

Well, GMO didn't cause that. Blaming GMO for things it doesn't do isn't going to stop agricultural practices that essentially strip mine the soils a la 1930s dustbowl. Furthermore, the pseudoscience promoted by the Dr. Mercolas of the world in opposition to GMO and in promotion of the snake oil that they are selling is nothing but disinformation that detracts from any effort to optimize food productions. And when I say optimze I don't mean merely maximizing economic efficiency and profits for the producers. I mean best environmental and health outcomes for the rapidly growing population. Tupac asked "what's the rush". The population growth rate and the strain on the biosphere is the rush of improving food technology.

On pseudoscientific disinfo: A friend shared a story on facebook yesterday from a "natural foods" website that warned that GMO corn causes Autism and Celiac disease and it claimed this was because Roundup upsets the gut flora which causes a metabolic cascade of internal destruction from the colon to the brain. Not anywhere in the "study" was information on whether or not roundup was actually present in the food products from the GMO corn or any sort of controlled science. But that story is sure scaring the hell out of my health conscious friends that lack a science background to critically read such "studies". I'm getting to the point at which I cannot decide if that type of story is fear mongering by assholes that are trying to sell their own snake oil or if it is corporate disinformation meant to discredit opposition to Monsanto Hegemony. Yeah, I distrust the corporations that much that I believe that they would do such things. Then again, the snake oil salesmen and the gullible public are probably providing that service to the corporations for free like the TeaPublicans handing everything over to corporatocracy in the name of "personal freedom".

I want long term controlled studies. That is why I want government funding back into research and education. But I want the pseudoscientific crap to go away too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And now we cut to the quick of what really motivates arkirk:.

Unlike you Akirk, is able to think about the social cost of things and that making things more "efficient" in the short term may have unintended consequences.

The problem is he assumes big = bad. Generally a bigger outfit does a more efficient job and thus has a lower impact for the amount produced.

The problem is you think "efficient"=good, but there are other important ways to measure how we live

Efficient normally means less resource use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to be afraid of sustainability because you are both probably quite a ways away from anything that resembles sustainability. I have NEVER SUGGESTED THAT WE RETURN TO THE STONE AGE. On this very page Jarhyn thinks it is okay to "burn this planet to a cinder if it means our minds living on forever." He also said not to worry old earth because it is going to be scoured by the sun anyway. Does he not know that I understand the probable likelihood of our sun expanding beyond the current orbit of Mars? That has nothing to do with raising corn or peaches. It isn't going to happen in anything like your lifetime...get over it!

The problem is that you are aiming for a fantasy that doesn't exist. While you do not intend to knock us back to the stone age that's the end result of the small-is-beautiful approach. We do not have the technology for 100% resource recovery, a small tech approach can't get to the hard to reach resources so they are lost over time.

You can even see this in their own projections--they're predicting a slow decline but always cut off the graph before it reaches the catastrophic point.

What I am trying to tell you two and to some degree, Loren is to stop being so arrogant and insulting to ideas you don't understand or simply brush off without any consideration whatever. It is possible to deploy a lot of modern equipment and ideas into environments that simply are not fit for the activity. I am an advocate for scientific methods seeking sustainability...not the return to stone tools.

The problem is you judge whether something is right or wrong based on how you like the implications, not on whether it's right or not.

 

[AdamWho]

If you follow this issue for a couple of years here is what you are going to find (and this thread is no exception). There are no arguments against GM crops that are both factual and unique to GM crops.

Arguments about "long-term testing" are not only without substance (because there is no meaningful mechanism to test) they have already been met with 1000s of studies over 30 years. See also: Trillion meal study

The decades old scientific consensus is clear: There is no difference in health or safety between GM and non-GM crops. Every major respected scientific body has signed on this consensus and it is generally more accepted than things like climate-change.

Even the well-worn trope of "GMOs are good but Monsanto is bad", doesn't even hold water when you actually look at the claims. Most are urban legends, misinformation or out-right lies. Seriously, I bet that a person cannot find a factual, timely and relevant (to GM crops) issue about Monsanto's ethics or business practices.

The only reason that a site like this one is stuck on this issue is because this bit of pseudoscience is on the political left and for this reason it is a blind-spot for those on the political left, which the majority of atheist are on.

This area of science is a HUGE blind spot for skeptics on the left and we should work hard to root it out because it destroys the pro-science credibility of the left. This is important because we need at least one political party in the US to have credibility on science issues.

 

[tupac chopra]

Would you be kind enough to explain how you arrived at that?


Forests have disappeared at an alarming rate with technology. Life is nasty for many people in modern societies today, and prolonging peoples lives doesn't always make them less nasty

I just don't see why we need to rush when it comes to GMO foods. What is the hurry.
The Russian NGO is doing a study that will take 3 year (only). Do we need to rush them out there before these sorts of tests are done?

What you don't seem to understand is that without the technology, life would be substantially, intractably worse. .

You're putting words in mu mouth now. Why?
Of course I said no such thing.

 

[tupac chopra]

If you follow this issue for a couple of years here is what you are going to find (and this thread is no exception). There are no arguments against GM crops that are both factual and unique to GM crops.

Arguments about "long-term testing" are not only without substance (because there is no meaningful mechanism to test) .

What a silly thing to say. You do long term tests and compare a variety of heath issues between the rats fed GMO and those that were not fed GMO.

 

[arkirk]

And there you do it again, talking about GMOs as if it's a trait. It isn't. Until you figure out why a process can be defended from irrational luddites but why it can't honestly be attacked, why processes are necessarily application agnostic, and why only applications can in reality be bad, you're pretty much a lost cause.

I dislike Luddites not because they don't care about people, but because they don't think about the results of their actions or how to direct that caring to fruitful ends. Look at PETA. They care so much about animals. But they don't understand a great many things, so they fail to grasp the demands of darwinian/animal driven ethics, nor its relation to lamarckian/person driven ethics. They are destructive children who have no mind for consequences.

I've stated repeatedly what I want, namely individual long term studies: well controlled, government-run and government funded, and necessarily replicated, once any crop passes FDA, and that all new hybrids and traits in mass production be so tested once they hit the food supply, GMO or not. But in the mean time, we eat them, and if someone wants to go anti-vax anti-GMO Luddite mode on us all and attack the GMO mind worm agribusiness lizard men from the CIA they can rot. If they want to raise valid concerns about the genes and methods we're using to make bees immune to CCD or to attach extra limbs to ourselves or that we are using to inject cloroplasts into cows, then they can do that quite easily and happily so by joining a research team on those subjects. But attacking the idea itself of transgenics is foolish. It's irrational, and it's Ludditism.

That's quite a rant you have going there. The first thing I want to make clear is that you are using the word Luddite to describe anything you disagree with. Actually, Luddites were a group of British workmen between 1811 and 1816 who destroyed textile machinery in the belief it would diminish employment. I invite you to go back and re-read my posts and tell me where and when I recommended destruction of any machinery. You have gene grafted a story on me and environmentalists in general that has no place in this discussion. It would serve you well if you would slow down in your tirades against those who recommend caution in the worldwide application of nascent technologies. I have always recommended a scientific approach to our environmental and social problems. The production of food is very important to the human race. So is the preservation of an environment suitable for human habitation on the planet. I have spent many years of my life managing processes in pollution control and am acutely aware of unintended consequences of industrial operations. This does not make me a Luddite or anything remotely resembling a Luddite.

Slow down the rant and try to understand the complexity of this issue and its significance and consequences for all of us.

GMO is a relatively new technology. It has been commercially marketed IN A FEW INDUSTRIAL CONFIGURATIONS (roundup ready) by a company that is voracious and litigious and only concerned with its bottom line. It has tampered with the regulatory process, and engaged in political skulduggery. There is clear evidence of this and Monsanto has co-opted the term GMO. To be opposed to Monsanto has nothing to do with being opposed to GMO, but they would have the world believe this. I have watched this company morph over the course of 60 years. When I was six or seven, I saw Mr. Wizard on black and white TV, with his show on science. Monsanto was the sponsor. Mr. Wizard was a cool dude who I am sure interested thousands of kids in science.

Monsanto today has such a checkered history of litigation and inappropriate marketing and regulatory tampering, it has taken on board a lot of supporters who think they invented modern agriculture and have made their actions sacrosanct and unchallengable. Luddites destroyed equipment. Monsanto destroys the environment...and turns our society against itself. Their politics are so terrible and corrupt, we have seen this confusion develop for a long time. We really need labeling of GMO's in our food supply regardless of how much it costs. There should also be an effort to reduce the carbon footprint of our food supply. That is an area where industrial agriculture in general has a poor record. This is really what we need, not Monsanto's domination of farmers world wide. That really is not a Luddite idea. It is one that calls for greater refinement of our conceptualization of our relationship to the food we eat.

 

[jab]

How can I know if I'm supporting GMO's with my hard-earned cash if they're not labelled?
Um, I can't.
If you want people to show their support for GMOs, label them, and just like audiences have supported American Sniper or, not so much, Big Eyes, foodeaters will have a chance to support them meaningfully.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I just love the name of this thread.

Support GMO foods

Now I get supporting a political candidate, a sports team, the local theater company, the high school band, but a corporate product?

Why not support antiperspirant over deodorant, liquid cleanser over scouring powder, Coca Cola over Pepsi?

"I support Jif because it is a noble peanut butter that has endured hard times in its fight for the right to be both chunky and creamy."

Oh my Lord and Taylor!

 

[bilby]

I just love the name of this thread.

Support GMO foods

Now I get supporting a political candidate, a sports team, the local theater company, the high school band, but a corporate product?

Why not support antiperspirant over deodorant, liquid cleanser over scouring powder, Coca Cola over Pepsi?

"I support Jif because it is a noble peanut butter that has endured hard times in its fight for the right to be both chunky and creamy."

Oh my Lord and Taylor!

When the corporate shills of Big Organic attack a technology without justification or reason, then it is reasonable to support that technology against the attackers.

I don't care for Monsanto, DuPont or any other biotech firm any more than I care for PepsiCo, but I would support any of these organisations if they were attacked unjustly by morons; just as I would oppose them if they were to do something genuinely evil - like what Union Carbide did at Bhopal, for example.

 

[arkirk]

I just love the name of this thread.

Support GMO foods

Now I get supporting a political candidate, a sports team, the local theater company, the high school band, but a corporate product?

Why not support antiperspirant over deodorant, liquid cleanser over scouring powder, Coca Cola over Pepsi?

"I support Jif because it is a noble peanut butter that has endured hard times in its fight for the right to be both chunky and creamy."

Oh my Lord and Taylor!

Come now! Don't be a Luddite! Jif is NO MORE NOBLE THAN Skippy!

In the early days of TV, there used to be a show called "You Asked for It," hosted by an amiable white haired man named Art Baker. He would tell the audience that Skippy was always fresh because of a miracle process known as hydrogenation that kept the oils from going rancid. It accomplished this miracle of freshness by saturating the oils in the peanut butter. Wow! That was smooth! We learn in time that everything we do has consequences....good and bad.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The entire point of labeling is for the consumer's information and ability to make an informed product choice, not for the collection of data or to increase knowledge of potential health risks. Of course, keeping the public AWARE of the consumption of GMO foods would much it considerably easier to justify the long term studies that would actually determine if GMOs -- and which ones -- pose a health risk.

Anything less and the data is meaningless except to attack transgenics, like a filthy Luddite.

It is interesting that you seem to be advocating a reliance on valid empirical data in one sentence and then immediately resort to ad hominem rhetoric in the very next sentence. It's almost as if science is just a rhetorical tool to justify a position to which you are already deeply emotionally invested.

If you put a label on beef that says 'contains animal parts or animal byproducts' how useful would that be?

Twice to three times as useful as asking this particular question in relation to anything I wrote.

It gives information, but the information is utterly useless

Actually, it's QUITE useful for someone who wants to know the exact type of materials that were used to manufacture the product they are looking at. This is, in fact, the entire reason why products are supposed to list their ingredients: so consumers can be informed about what is IN the products they are consuming.

So I, as a consumer, would want to know if my food contains GMOs for the same reason I would want to know if it contains "enriched wheat flower" or "Yellow 5." 99% of the time, I don't give a shit. The labels are for the 1% of the time when it actually matters.

If you have an issue with American labeling laws, go ahead and spell it out. But don't pretend this is purely a "luddite vs. progressive geneticist" issue. It's a "consumer vs. manufacturer" issue with the manufacturer favoring opacity and the consumer demanding transparency. In this conflict, I side with consumers. Why don't you?

Your inability to PICK a GMO and focus on it belies a lack of scientific integrity.

Considering I don't actually have a problem with GMOs in principle -- and never claimed that I did -- the only valid reply is "What the fuck are you talking about?"

The blanket accusation and suspicion not of the result but of the method is itself...

Bears no resemblance to anything I have posted in this thread ever.

Let's look at the trivial case: someone uses Cauliflower Mozaic Virus to remove a gene. They clone the plant and put the gene back in. After some work, they confirm that the clone is genetically identical to the original plant. It would itself be a GMO. It would be absolutely guaranteed to be safe. It could literally not possibly be not-safe in relation to the original organism.

The "M" in GMO stands for "Modified" doesn't it? If you're cloning unmodified plants for some reason (can't imagine why) then you haven't modified the genome, you're just cloning them. Which, if and when there is a category for that sort of thing, would also be useful to put on the label of products we buy in the future.

Let's look at an equally trivial case: I get into an argument with some hipster who claims, over a bowl of doritos and bean dip, that GMOs cause allergic reaction and gluten allergies and that they should be banned. After listening to his case for several minutes, I turn over the bag of Doritos and point to the ingredients list: "You DO know these contain genetically modified corn, right? You've been eating Doritos since you were ten and you're not allergic to gluten. Clearly something is wrong with your theory."

I'll ask you a second time: is there a SPECIFIC reason you are against accurate labeling of consumer products, or are you just grinding your axe against "luddites" because you have a hardon for geneticists?

 

[tupac chopra]

When the corporate shills of Big Organic attack a technology without justification or reason, then it is reasonable to support that technology against the attackers.

I am asking that long term tests be done to see if there are any long term health effects. Though somehow this gets muddled up in your head.
The reason for long term health studies is to see if there is long term health effects.

As the only long term study on Monsanto's GM corn was inconclusive let's let people know what they and that the only long term study appeared to show there could be health issues.

Does Monsanto's GM corn cause cancer in rats?
Well; we don't know because although the rats fed Monsanto corn tested had more tumors and bigger tumors, the study was inconclusive.
It was inconclusive because they weren't testing for tumors but were worried by what they observed

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The problem is that you have to keep them separate. That means carefully cleaning out any container before it's used to haul a different variety.

You mean they would have to make sure the containers they're using to haul food are actually CLEAN?

Oh, the indignity!

Existing labeling laws have no such requirement.

Existing laws require manufacturers to accurately list the ingredients used in the manufacture of said product, as accurately as possible. Accuracy -- and a bare minimum of "knowing what we're doing" -- is already a requirement, hence the reason bread companies will be able to tell you if the bread they're selling you is made from whole wheat flour or enriched white flour.

The items are commodities. You are not required to list every detail, the name of the ingredient is enough

And you need to list those ingredients accurately. If your product uses corn, carrots, peas and green beans, you can't just list them as "vegetables."

The difference in this case between natural corn and GMO corn would be similar to the difference between enriched flour and whole wheat flour. That difference is significant enough that products that use both have to list them separately (and most even describe exactly what "enriched flour" actually means).

there's no requirement to list the impurities that are left behind from whatever it came from

I'll grant that there's no particular need -- at this time -- to require a listing for "trace amounts of GMO products" unless the product specifically seeks to be certified "GMO free."

We are saying it would be a lot more expensive to accurately label whether soybeans were RR or not

Which is bullshit. The manufacturer knows whether his supplier is using RR soybeans or not. If he DOESN'T know, it's because he hasn't bothered to find out anything about his suppliers, what products they're using, nor the quality and safety thereof.

Basically: the only way you can be that ignorant about what you are using to make your product is because you're an imbecile and probably shouldn't be putting your product on the market in the first place.

Thus showing you have no idea of the cost and apparently didn't even read the article discussing some of the costs.

Given your stellar reputation for carefully reading the very few external sources you bother to site, I'm going to take a guess that YOU didn't either. But at least three people have asked you to source that claim since I first called you on it, so why don't you go ahead and repost it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

How can I know if I'm supporting GMO's with my hard-earned cash if they're not labelled?
Um, I can't.
If you want people to show their support for GMOs, label them, and just like audiences have supported American Sniper or, not so much, Big Eyes, foodeaters will have a chance to support them meaningfully.

This.

Even the well-worn trope of "GMOs are good but Monsanto is bad", doesn't even hold water when you actually look at the claims. Most are urban legends, misinformation or out-right lies.

Considering that the primary claim is that GMO companies have been extremely aggressive in patent litigation and have gone to sometimes extraordinary lengths to protect their control of the modified genome. That they have sued dozens of farmers, companies, countries and organizations for infringing on their patents gives the impression, fair or otherwise, that GMO companies are unscrupulous profiteers whose absolute profit motive leaves little regard for the hardship their actions cause to others. That impression may not be inaccurate. The Schmiester case is often cited (and misunderstood), but it demonstrates Monsanto's view that its ownership of its GMO products is absolute and trumps all other considerations.

It's not that Monsanto is immoral. It's that Monsanto is AMORAL and kind of dickish.

 

[arkirk]

This really isn't an argument between people who are OPPOSED TO THE USE OF GMO PRODUCTS AND THOSE WHO DO. It has become an argument between those who think we should know what we are eating and those who think we should remain ignorant. We already have labeling requirements for food. There already is a format for this reporting and space allocated on labels for this information. Just because some producer chooses to not be careful with the cleanliness of their products should not excuse them from reporting just what it is they are selling as food.

Granaries that deal only with shapes of grains sound to me like the stone age graneries...duh it's yellow so it must be corn! Not acceptable! Monsanto is comfortable with the present labeling requirements and will apply massive lobbying efforts for these uninformed labeling requirements to continue. At what point will it be made to stop? Our problem is that our government had no problems sponsoring things like the Tuskegee experiments with siphilis and with plutonium and without guidance from an aroused public will let about any state of affairs continue and fulminate. We have a long history of human rights abuses in the U.S. from corporate America and from our own government, and it will continue. Loren is right about one thing. His position on most issues is EXACTLY THE GOVERNMENT POSITION, codified and completely written by corporate America.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I just love the name of this thread.

Support GMO foods

Now I get supporting a political candidate, a sports team, the local theater company, the high school band, but a corporate product?

Why not support antiperspirant over deodorant, liquid cleanser over scouring powder, Coca Cola over Pepsi?

"I support Jif because it is a noble peanut butter that has endured hard times in its fight for the right to be both chunky and creamy."

Oh my Lord and Taylor!

When the corporate shills of Big Organic attack a technology without justification or reason, then it is reasonable to support that technology against the attackers.

I don't care for Monsanto, DuPont or any other biotech firm any more than I care for PepsiCo, but I would support any of these organisations if they were attacked unjustly by morons; just as I would oppose them if they were to do something genuinely evil - like what Union Carbide did at Bhopal, for example.

PEOPLE need support and corporations are not people.

Look, everybody probably needs to back off a minute and regroup.

You are not a Luddite if a particular product or process worries you about whether or not it is safe.

You are not Corporate shill if you see good in a particular product or process.

Now, eventually there will be deaths or birth defects and they will be attributed, at least in part, to GMOs and there will be panic in the streets. And one side will want them banned forever and the other side will look for every cause under the sun that is NOT the fault, even a little, of the GMOs.

And more damage will be done.

Such is life.

 

[arkirk]

I just love the name of this thread.

Support GMO foods

Now I get supporting a political candidate, a sports team, the local theater company, the high school band, but a corporate product?

Why not support antiperspirant over deodorant, liquid cleanser over scouring powder, Coca Cola over Pepsi?

"I support Jif because it is a noble peanut butter that has endured hard times in its fight for the right to be both chunky and creamy."

Oh my Lord and Taylor!

When the corporate shills of Big Organic attack a technology without justification or reason, then it is reasonable to support that technology against the attackers.

I don't care for Monsanto, DuPont or any other biotech firm any more than I care for PepsiCo, but I would support any of these organisations if they were attacked unjustly by morons; just as I would oppose them if they were to do something genuinely evil - like what Union Carbide did at Bhopal, for example.

You mean AFTER THE FACT....RIGHT? After you finally figure out what was done in ignorance? Is that what you mean? Without labels in thousands of products, how would you recall any of this stuff? By the way, Bhopal still is waiting for remediation...I believe about 25 years after the accident. So let Monsanto just do until it becomes apparent to you.
That might be a little late.

 

[bilby]

When the corporate shills of Big Organic attack a technology without justification or reason, then it is reasonable to support that technology against the attackers.

I am asking that long term tests be done to see if there are any long term health effects. Though somehow this gets muddled up in your head.
The reason for long term health studies is to see if there is long term health effects.

As the only long term study on Monsanto's GM corn was inconclusive let's let people know what they and that the only long term study appeared to show there could be health issues.

Does Monsanto's GM corn cause cancer in rats?
Well; we don't know because although the rats fed Monsanto corn tested had more tumors and bigger tumors, the study was inconclusive.
It was inconclusive because they weren't testing for tumors but were worried by what they observed

But as it was inconclusive, and we therefore don't know, they are wrong to be worried by what they observed. What they observed was not indicative of any need to worry.

Worrying for no reason is not a good idea; expecting others to worry because you have no evidence of a cause for worry is insane.

You keep saying that the results were inconclusive, and then acting as though this was cause for concern - when by definition, it is no cause for anything.

You can't have it both ways; drawing any conclusions from inconclusive studies is impossible by definition. Only a madman or a moron points to inconclusive studies and demands action on the basis of those studies.