Support GMO foods

[arkirk]

Loren: Anybody can dig up an empty insult and sling it at anybody. I don't put this past you. It's a shame we cannot discuss actual serious issues without this type of insult being slung at people who have spent their lives doing reasearch YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T UNDERSTAND.

I was calling tinfoil on the notion that the genes were replicating in the beings that ate the GMO plants.

1) This makes no sense. DNA isn't capable of self-replication. It requires the machinery of a cell to replicate.

2) If DNA is getting from the gut into the hosts' bloodstream they have a medical problem.

3) If consumed DNA can replicate in the being that consumed it why doesn't it happen with the ordinary DNA that's in the food?

Single celled organism such as the bacteria in the gut of animals have a different method of incorporating "food" they consume. Depending on the situation, for example, bacteria through a process called conjugation transfer mitochondrial copies of immunities they acquire through exposure and survive. This mechanism has a lot to do with the existence of super pathogens that are resistant to antibiotics. Genetic modifications improperly inserted may occur as mitochondrial material and be expressed in others of the same species by conjugation. The problem with massive applications of new, previously non-existent living and inorganic materials to our entire environment is a recurring theme of marketplace economies. The problem with this dispersion is that its consequences are not apparent till it is so widely dispersed it becomes nearly impossible to do anything about it. In the non-living world, examples include such things as man made radionuclides, persistent pesticides, etc. How much more tangled a web can result from GMO's especially when they are teamed with chemical applications ought to be obvious.

It is no comfort that some bureaucrat somewhere can be talked out of sponsoring exhaustive tests necessary before things like GMO's become deeply ingrained in our economy and our environment. Unlike Loren, I do not have omniscience on all matters. Perhaps his tin foil hat gives him special powers to know it all.

 

[bilby]

I was calling tinfoil on the notion that the genes were replicating in the beings that ate the GMO plants.

1) This makes no sense. DNA isn't capable of self-replication. It requires the machinery of a cell to replicate.

2) If DNA is getting from the gut into the hosts' bloodstream they have a medical problem.

3) If consumed DNA can replicate in the being that consumed it why doesn't it happen with the ordinary DNA that's in the food?

Single celled organism such as the bacteria in the gut of animals have a different method of incorporating "food" they consume. Depending on the situation, for example, bacteria through a process called conjugation transfer mitochondrial copies of immunities they acquire through exposure and survive. This mechanism has a lot to do with the existence of super pathogens that are resistant to antibiotics. Genetic modifications improperly inserted may occur as mitochondrial material and be expressed in others of the same species by conjugation. The problem with massive applications of new, previously non-existent living and inorganic materials to our entire environment is a recurring theme of marketplace economies. The problem with this dispersion is that its consequences are not apparent till it is so widely dispersed it becomes nearly impossible to do anything about it. In the non-living world, examples include such things as man made radionuclides, persistent pesticides, etc. How much more tangled a web can result from GMO's especially when they are teamed with chemical applications ought to be obvious.

It is no comfort that some bureaucrat somewhere can be talked out of sponsoring exhaustive tests necessary before things like GMO's become deeply ingrained in our economy and our environment. Unlike Loren, I do not have omniscience on all matters. Perhaps his tin foil hat gives him special powers to know it all.

Perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that other people might know things you don't.

It is not necessary to know it all in order to know some of it; and just because you are ignorant of something does not imply that everyone else must be.

 

[ApostateAbe]

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.

Eddie, the science seems to be very simple. Millions of children die from lack of Vitamin A. Golden Rice has a lot of Vitamin A. Millions of children's lives would be saved by eating Golden Rice instead of white rice. There is no speculation. The science can not be more conclusive. 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, but about anything.

 

[arkirk]

Single celled organism such as the bacteria in the gut of animals have a different method of incorporating "food" they consume. Depending on the situation, for example, bacteria through a process called conjugation transfer mitochondrial copies of immunities they acquire through exposure and survive. This mechanism has a lot to do with the existence of super pathogens that are resistant to antibiotics. Genetic modifications improperly inserted may occur as mitochondrial material and be expressed in others of the same species by conjugation. The problem with massive applications of new, previously non-existent living and inorganic materials to our entire environment is a recurring theme of marketplace economies. The problem with this dispersion is that its consequences are not apparent till it is so widely dispersed it becomes nearly impossible to do anything about it. In the non-living world, examples include such things as man made radionuclides, persistent pesticides, etc. How much more tangled a web can result from GMO's especially when they are teamed with chemical applications ought to be obvious.

It is no comfort that some bureaucrat somewhere can be talked out of sponsoring exhaustive tests necessary before things like GMO's become deeply ingrained in our economy and our environment. Unlike Loren, I do not have omniscience on all matters. Perhaps his tin foil hat gives him special powers to know it all.

Perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that other people might know things you don't.

It is not necessary to know it all in order to know some of it; and just because you are ignorant of something does not imply that everyone else must be.

What in the heck are you talking about? I am the one saying WE don't know it all. While people might be influenced in this forum in one manner or another, this issue and others like it needs public discussion and not just a flow of ad homs and inuendos. Our economy and our society, in order to progress and survive needs to grow in terms of the things IT in its totality understands. Also for that cumulative totality our race gathers of understanding to be of any value and accessibilty, we need to understand how to share it. I am sure the good Dr. in Scotland that issued that report was neither insincere, nor unprofessional...as some posters here would imply.

I have never pretended to know everything and have in fact made a point of stating we cumulatively don't know everything. I don't believe there has been a wealth of evidence indicating that GMO crops are entirely safe and that they should be spread all over the earth, displacing and extincting many species simply due to its cultivation, need for chemical treatment, and the ecoservices it consumes. We make too many mistakes when we carry any technology to such a point it starts riding on our back, giving reduced benefits and slowly poisoning us with its debris. There are dangers in the explosion of any technology to the point of that technology eliminating others for economic survival. This stuff is serious.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that other people might know things you don't.

It is not necessary to know it all in order to know some of it; and just because you are ignorant of something does not imply that everyone else must be.

What in the heck are you talking about? I am the one saying WE don't know it all. While people might be influenced in this forum in one manner or another, this issue and others like it needs public discussion and not just a flow of ad homs and inuendos. Our economy and our society, in order to progress and survive needs to grow in terms of the things IT in its totality understands. Also for that cumulative totality our race gathers of understanding to be of any value and accessibilty, we need to understand how to share it. I am sure the good Dr. in Scotland that issued that report was neither insincere, nor unprofessional...as some posters here would imply.

I have never pretended to know everything and have in fact made a point of stating we cumulatively don't know everything. I don't believe there has been a wealth of evidence indicating that GMO crops are entirely safe and that they should be spread all over the earth, displacing and extincting many species simply due to its cultivation, need for chemical treatment, and the ecoservices it consumes. We make too many mistakes when we carry any technology to such a point it starts riding on our back, giving reduced benefits and slowly poisoning us with its debris. There are dangers in the explosion of any technology to the point of that technology eliminating others for economic survival. This stuff is serious.

Indeed it is serious.

That is why it is not reasonable to pretend that 'we' don't know, when 'we' do know, but either you are not aware of what 'we' know, or you want others to believe that 'we' don't know in order to engender fear of the unknown.

'We' know a lot. If you don't know that, then you should leave the discussion to those who do know.

 

[Underseer]

Perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that other people might know things you don't.

It is not necessary to know it all in order to know some of it; and just because you are ignorant of something does not imply that everyone else must be.

What in the heck are you talking about? I am the one saying WE don't know it all. While people might be influenced in this forum in one manner or another, this issue and others like it needs public discussion and not just a flow of ad homs and inuendos. Our economy and our society, in order to progress and survive needs to grow in terms of the things IT in its totality understands. Also for that cumulative totality our race gathers of understanding to be of any value and accessibilty, we need to understand how to share it. I am sure the good Dr. in Scotland that issued that report was neither insincere, nor unprofessional...as some posters here would imply.

I have never pretended to know everything and have in fact made a point of stating we cumulatively don't know everything. I don't believe there has been a wealth of evidence indicating that GMO crops are entirely safe and that they should be spread all over the earth, displacing and extincting many species simply due to its cultivation, need for chemical treatment, and the ecoservices it consumes. We make too many mistakes when we carry any technology to such a point it starts riding on our back, giving reduced benefits and slowly poisoning us with its debris. There are dangers in the explosion of any technology to the point of that technology eliminating others for economic survival. This stuff is serious.

Displacing and "extincting" other species?

Good grief.

Are you not aware that most GMO crops can't produce seeds? You can't just grow some crops, take the seeds from them, and then use those seeds to plant next year's crops like you can with normal non-GMO produce. Why? So that seed companies can make more money. So what if we replaced all varieties of wheat with GMO wheat as you suggest? If civilization breaks down for whatever reason, then *poof* just like that no more wheat. Ever. I'm sorry, but your suggestion is absurd.

All those anti-GMO idiots focus everyone's attention on bad science and false claims about the health effects of GMO, when what we should be talking about are the fact that a small number of seed companies now hold enormous control over the human food supply, and some of those seed companies have awful business practices that screw over farmers.

 

[Axulus]

I couldn't help but draw parallels in the GMO debate with this recent SciShow episode about the lobotomy:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StrsvKSAbT8[/youtube]

The lobotomy [mutation breeding] remained common until a French [American] pharmaceutical [biotech] company introduced chlorpromazine [RR soy bean], a medication [seed] that blocked dopamine [glyphosate] receptors in the brain [plant]. With this new drug [technique] available, there was no need for costly and dangerous surgery [mutation breeding]. Today the lobotamy [mutation breeding] is considered dangerous and archaic, a blunt tool for treating the subtle intricacies of mental illness [creating new varieties of seeds].

 

[Axulus]

"Mutation bred"? Since I don't know what that means, I certainly couldn't answer the question.

This is probably the most ironic and most telling statement about the debate. The anti-GMO crowd criticizes the "secret" or "hidden" nature of the introduction of GMOs into our food supply (which is why labeling should be required). Don't know about GMOs? It's because "they" don't what you to know about them.

And yet complete ignorance regarding the scientific facts involved with mutation breeding is prevalent among the anti-GMO crowd.

Here is what scientists have to say:

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Crop breeders increasingly are using radiation and gene-altering chemicals to mutate seeds, creating new plant varieties with better yields -- all without regulation.

The United Nations’ Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture program has received 39 requests this year for radiation services from plant breeders in dozens of countries, the most since records began in 1977, according to program head Pierre Lagoda. The group in Vienna promotes developing more “sustainable” crops by irradiating them to resist threats like drought, insects, disease and salinity.

Mutation breeding, after booming in the 1950s with the dawn of the Nuclear Age, is still used by seed developers from BASF SE to Dupont Co. to create crops for markets that reject genetic engineering. Regulators don’t demand proof that new varieties are harmless. The U.S. National Academies of Science warned in 1989 and again in 2004 that regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to products of mutation breeding isn’t scientifically justified.

“The NAS hits the nail on the head and I don’t think that any plant- or crop-scientist will disagree,” said Kevin M. Folta, a molecular geneticist and interim chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida. “Mutation breeding is absolutely the least predictable.”

Health Risks

The increase in mutation breeding raises questions of fairness and safety compared with genetic engineering, a regulated technique used by companies such as Monsanto Co. that involves transferring specific genes from one species to another. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean, a blockbuster product in the U.S. and Brazil, can’t be grown in the European Union, where national governments have cited concerns about risks to health and the environment.

In contrast, mutagenesis deletes and rearranges hundreds or thousands of genes randomly. It uses a man-made process that mimics with a greater intensity what the sun’s radiation has done to plants and animals for millennia, spawning mutations that sometimes are beneficial or hazardous to the organism.

The randomness makes mutagenesis less precise than St. Louis-based Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, the NAS said in a 2004 report. It’s the breeding technique most likely to cause unintended genetic changes, some of which could harm human health, the academy said.

Fewer Hurdles

Still, mutagenesis is gaining in popularity because it’s a far cheaper way to give crops new traits than the $150 million to $200 million that companies such as Monsanto pay to get a new GMO on the market. Mutant crops also face no labeling requirements or regulatory hurdles in most of the world.

“These difficulties in getting a GMO to the market, we don’t have it in mutation breeding,” Lagoda said in an Oct. 16 phone interview.

Breeders have registered more than 3,000 mutant varieties with Lagoda’s program, a partnership between the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those varieties are just “the tip of the iceberg” because many breeders actively avoid revealing how they create new plants, Lagoda said.

This year alone, Lagoda’s program has gotten requests to help irradiate 31 plant species, ranging from sugar beets from Poland and wheat from the U.K. to rice from Indonesia and potatoes from Kenya....

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2013/11/mutant-crops-drive-basf-sales-where.html

Now that you are educated on the matter, what say you? Your support of labeling of GMOs is effectively a support of a more dangerous method of seed breeding due to the unintended consequences of the policy, increasing the danger of the food supply and the environment based on scientific grounds as more mutation breeding is undertaken in place of GMO techniques.

It's quite amazing to me that you were unaware of the major harmful unintended consequences of your support for mandatory GMO labeling. What other government policies do you support that have major harmful unintended consequences?

 

[Axulus]

I did. we are still waiting for your reply.

Can you point out the post? It seemed like you were evading the questions.

*crickets*

 

[arkirk]

What in the heck are you talking about? I am the one saying WE don't know it all. While people might be influenced in this forum in one manner or another, this issue and others like it needs public discussion and not just a flow of ad homs and inuendos. Our economy and our society, in order to progress and survive needs to grow in terms of the things IT in its totality understands. Also for that cumulative totality our race gathers of understanding to be of any value and accessibilty, we need to understand how to share it. I am sure the good Dr. in Scotland that issued that report was neither insincere, nor unprofessional...as some posters here would imply.

I have never pretended to know everything and have in fact made a point of stating we cumulatively don't know everything. I don't believe there has been a wealth of evidence indicating that GMO crops are entirely safe and that they should be spread all over the earth, displacing and extincting many species simply due to its cultivation, need for chemical treatment, and the ecoservices it consumes. We make too many mistakes when we carry any technology to such a point it starts riding on our back, giving reduced benefits and slowly poisoning us with its debris. There are dangers in the explosion of any technology to the point of that technology eliminating others for economic survival. This stuff is serious.

Displacing and "extincting" other species?

Good grief.

Are you not aware that most GMO crops can't produce seeds? You can't just grow some crops, take the seeds from them, and then use those seeds to plant next year's crops like you can with normal non-GMO produce. Why? So that seed companies can make more money. So what if we replaced all varieties of wheat with GMO wheat as you suggest? If civilization breaks down for whatever reason, then *poof* just like that no more wheat. Ever. I'm sorry, but your suggestion is absurd.

All those anti-GMO idiots focus everyone's attention on bad science and false claims about the health effects of GMO, when what we should be talking about are the fact that a small number of seed companies now hold enormous control over the human food supply, and some of those seed companies have awful business practices that screw over farmers.

Extinctions occur whenever a species' habitat is destroyed. A very many of the species on this earth are localized and simply development in their locale can easily extinct species. This happens when you have farmers everywhere rushing to produce miracle crops. It is bullshit to simply say so many people say it is so so it is so....and anybody with evidence or not..that disputes the polls is wearing a tin foil hat. You call them in this matter Anti-GMO Idiots. They are not idiots just because you have some kind of Monsanto or other industrialized agriculture company or its shills in government say so. You are allowing yourself to become prejudiced just because some residual herd instinct is pushing you that way. You have the right to do it, but I think it does your argument no good in the long run.

 

[arkirk]

This is probably the most ironic and most telling statement about the debate. The anti-GMO crowd criticizes the "secret" or "hidden" nature of the introduction of GMOs into our food supply (which is why labeling should be required). Don't know about GMOs? It's because "they" don't what you to know about them.

And yet complete ignorance regarding the scientific facts involved with mutation breeding is prevalent among the anti-GMO crowd.

Here is what scientists have to say:

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Crop breeders increasingly are using radiation and gene-altering chemicals to mutate seeds, creating new plant varieties with better yields -- all without regulation.

The United Nations’ Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture program has received 39 requests this year for radiation services from plant breeders in dozens of countries, the most since records began in 1977, according to program head Pierre Lagoda. The group in Vienna promotes developing more “sustainable” crops by irradiating them to resist threats like drought, insects, disease and salinity.

Mutation breeding, after booming in the 1950s with the dawn of the Nuclear Age, is still used by seed developers from BASF SE to Dupont Co. to create crops for markets that reject genetic engineering. Regulators don’t demand proof that new varieties are harmless. The U.S. National Academies of Science warned in 1989 and again in 2004 that regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to products of mutation breeding isn’t scientifically justified.

“The NAS hits the nail on the head and I don’t think that any plant- or crop-scientist will disagree,” said Kevin M. Folta, a molecular geneticist and interim chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida. “Mutation breeding is absolutely the least predictable.”

Health Risks

The increase in mutation breeding raises questions of fairness and safety compared with genetic engineering, a regulated technique used by companies such as Monsanto Co. that involves transferring specific genes from one species to another. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean, a blockbuster product in the U.S. and Brazil, can’t be grown in the European Union, where national governments have cited concerns about risks to health and the environment.

In contrast, mutagenesis deletes and rearranges hundreds or thousands of genes randomly. It uses a man-made process that mimics with a greater intensity what the sun’s radiation has done to plants and animals for millennia, spawning mutations that sometimes are beneficial or hazardous to the organism.

The randomness makes mutagenesis less precise than St. Louis-based Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, the NAS said in a 2004 report. It’s the breeding technique most likely to cause unintended genetic changes, some of which could harm human health, the academy said.

Fewer Hurdles

Still, mutagenesis is gaining in popularity because it’s a far cheaper way to give crops new traits than the $150 million to $200 million that companies such as Monsanto pay to get a new GMO on the market. Mutant crops also face no labeling requirements or regulatory hurdles in most of the world.

“These difficulties in getting a GMO to the market, we don’t have it in mutation breeding,” Lagoda said in an Oct. 16 phone interview.

Breeders have registered more than 3,000 mutant varieties with Lagoda’s program, a partnership between the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those varieties are just “the tip of the iceberg” because many breeders actively avoid revealing how they create new plants, Lagoda said.

This year alone, Lagoda’s program has gotten requests to help irradiate 31 plant species, ranging from sugar beets from Poland and wheat from the U.K. to rice from Indonesia and potatoes from Kenya....

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2013/11/mutant-crops-drive-basf-sales-where.html

Now that you are educated on the matter, what say you? Your support of labeling of GMOs is effectively a support of a more dangerous method of seed breeding due to the unintended consequences of the policy, increasing the danger of the food supply and the environment based on scientific grounds as more mutation breeding is undertaken in place of GMO techniques.

It's quite amazing to me that you were unaware of the major harmful unintended consequences of your support for mandatory GMO labeling. What other government policies do you support that have major harmful unintended consequences?

That is really quite silly for you to imagine that because there is another bad thing going on, we should accept this one?
That is the age old argument of the warmonger....either you fight for us or we will be fighting you. The actual truth has nothing to do with it. Maybe both technologies should have label requirements...not just GMO. If this stuff is not adequately tested, then at least it should be labeled. Look like you found yourself a cause...go get those mutant crops.

 

[tupac chopra]

Here is a problem. GMO advocates have a theory (which may be correct and it may not be correct) that their methods are safer.
But this is in fact an untested assumption until long term tests are done. In fact I posted evidence that scientists themselves have been surprised that what they found did not match their own assumptions in this regard.

It's the old-style breeding techniques that are the sledgehammer. GMO is a carefully applied scalpel.

That's your untested claim.
Until we do the long term tests we don't know whether you assertion is true or not.

You are trying to claim it's safer but the way to make that claim is to use science to test what happens if we or other mammals eat the GMO food in long term studies.

You can't just make the claim and refuse to test the claim. This is the problem. WE have Monsanto and other GMO advocates saying endlessly.

"It's a scalpel, it's precise. we know what we are doing. don't try to stop us, its precise, there is no need to test it we already told you it's precise."

But there are some clues that it's not what we thought it was.

We might think it is scalpel, but for some reason we don't understand there are some clues emerging that it might not be as precise as some claim.
This is the heart of science, examining what we thought was true and being open to changing.


So we need to test it. Long term tests

 

[SimpleDon]

Rhetorical nonsense is rhetorical nonsense.

Where can I find out what foods at the supermarket have been mutation bred?

"Mutation bred"? Since I don't know what that means, I certainly couldn't answer the question.

Why has nobody in this thread who have proclaimed their worries about GMOs expressed any sort of concern about what essentially amounts to GMOs as applied by a sledgehammer?

I have no idea what that means. But you'd have to ask those people. But if it is concern to significant number of consumers, then I have no problem with labeling the food. Of course, none of it is really relevant to the informing anyone of GMO foods.

No, it is relevant. You certainly ate mutation breed food today. It would be impossible to avoid them. All types of grains, most fruits and vegetables have had mutation breed varieties come to market. You participated today in a long running genetically modified food test today when you ate your grapefruit or your pasta. Exactly the kind that so many here are demanding.

In the process seeds and less frequently plants are exposed to gamma radiation or to strong toxic chemicals to intentionally cause mutations in the DNA. Of course, the mutations are random, hence the use of the term taking a sledgehammer approach. And of course, not many of the mutations produce desirable changes in the plants. It is a process with a 99+% failure rate.

The reasons that this process is pertinent to the discussion are,

• mutation breeding has been going on for more than seventy years with none of the problems that the anti-GMO people are worrying about.
• mutation breeding is entirely unregulated, mutate plants are grown together with non-mutate plants. So far we haven't poisoned the world.
• mutation breeding involves changing many more genes than GMOs.
• those who do mutation breeding don't even know how many or which genes that were changed.

So if the basis of the fear that the anti-GMO people have is the number of genes that are changed then mutation breeding doesn't deserve a pass, it mutates many more genes than GE does. In fact, GMO changes fewer genes than any traditional technique including cross breeding, in which the entire genome of two plants are involved.

 

[SimpleDon]

Loren: Anybody can dig up an empty insult and sling it at anybody. I don't put this past you. It's a shame we cannot discuss actual serious issues without this type of insult being slung at people who have spent their lives doing reasearch YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Yes. It is actually a serious issue.
It's unfortunate that people are against or resistant to actually doing the long term tests before we possibly contaminate the entire planet.
How will the GMO advocates get the GMO out of the food chain if we find problems we didn't understand?
Lets do the tests before we get to the point of no return

The problem with this call for more tests is that if past history repeats then no studies will be sufficient for the anti-GMO crowd.

If the anti-GMO campaign follows the pattern of the other anti-science, anti-technology campaigns, climate change deniers, anti-Vaxx, pro-smoking, etc., there will be a defense in depth, where any test that that supports GMO safety will never be enough. The term of the tests will never be long enough, the animals selected will never be close enough to human physiology, there will never be enough different variations of GMO foods tested, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was calling tinfoil on the notion that the genes were replicating in the beings that ate the GMO plants.

1) This makes no sense. DNA isn't capable of self-replication. It requires the machinery of a cell to replicate.

2) If DNA is getting from the gut into the hosts' bloodstream they have a medical problem.

3) If consumed DNA can replicate in the being that consumed it why doesn't it happen with the ordinary DNA that's in the food?

Single celled organism such as the bacteria in the gut of animals have a different method of incorporating "food" they consume. Depending on the situation, for example, bacteria through a process called conjugation transfer mitochondrial copies of immunities they acquire through exposure and survive. This mechanism has a lot to do with the existence of super pathogens that are resistant to antibiotics. Genetic modifications improperly inserted may occur as mitochondrial material and be expressed in others of the same species by conjugation. The problem with massive applications of new, previously non-existent living and inorganic materials to our entire environment is a recurring theme of marketplace economies. The problem with this dispersion is that its consequences are not apparent till it is so widely dispersed it becomes nearly impossible to do anything about it. In the non-living world, examples include such things as man made radionuclides, persistent pesticides, etc. How much more tangled a web can result from GMO's especially when they are teamed with chemical applications ought to be obvious.

It is no comfort that some bureaucrat somewhere can be talked out of sponsoring exhaustive tests necessary before things like GMO's become deeply ingrained in our economy and our environment. Unlike Loren, I do not have omniscience on all matters. Perhaps his tin foil hat gives him special powers to know it all.

*IF* you were right it would be easy enough to show--alien DNA in the food. Sequence the DNA, see what it says. If you find something that doesn't belong point it out, the regulators will act.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that other people might know things you don't.

It is not necessary to know it all in order to know some of it; and just because you are ignorant of something does not imply that everyone else must be.

Everyone's equal (standard leftist mantra). If he doesn't understand something it can't be understood.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is probably the most ironic and most telling statement about the debate. The anti-GMO crowd criticizes the "secret" or "hidden" nature of the introduction of GMOs into our food supply (which is why labeling should be required). Don't know about GMOs? It's because "they" don't what you to know about them.

And yet complete ignorance regarding the scientific facts involved with mutation breeding is prevalent among the anti-GMO crowd.

I hadn't heard of mutation breeding before but when I saw the term in this thread it was obvious what it meant (although I admit I figured radiation and didn't guess chemicals.) It's obvious that it would work, the only question being the economics (how much you have to do to find a good mutation.)

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with this call for more tests is that if past history repeats then no studies will be sufficient for the anti-GMO crowd.

If the anti-GMO campaign follows the pattern of the other anti-science, anti-technology campaigns, climate change deniers, anti-Vaxx, pro-smoking, etc., there will be a defense in depth, where any test that that supports GMO safety will never be enough. The term of the tests will never be long enough, the animals selected will never be close enough to human physiology, there will never be enough different variations of GMO foods tested, etc.

Yup--it's the standard approach. If you don't like the answer demand more studies until you do like the answer. Never mind that more studies don't change the answer, you keep things tied up with the process.

 

[laughing dog]

Now that you are educated on the matter, what say you? Your support of labeling of GMOs is effectively a support of a more dangerous method of seed breeding due to the unintended consequences of the policy, increasing the danger of the food supply and the environment based on scientific grounds as more mutation breeding is undertaken in place of GMO techniques.

It's quite amazing to me that you were unaware of the major harmful unintended consequences of your support for mandatory GMO labeling.

What major unintended consequences are you babbling about now? Seems to me that "mutation" is also a form of GMOs. Which would mean they would be labelled as well if this goes through. Duh.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes. It is actually a serious issue.
It's unfortunate that people are against or resistant to actually doing the long term tests before we possibly contaminate the entire planet.
How will the GMO advocates get the GMO out of the food chain if we find problems we didn't understand?
Lets do the tests before we get to the point of no return

The problem with this call for more tests is that if past history repeats then no studies will be sufficient for the anti-GMO crowd.

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.

 

[Axulus]

Now that you are educated on the matter, what say you? Your support of labeling of GMOs is effectively a support of a more dangerous method of seed breeding due to the unintended consequences of the policy, increasing the danger of the food supply and the environment based on scientific grounds as more mutation breeding is undertaken in place of GMO techniques.

It's quite amazing to me that you were unaware of the major harmful unintended consequences of your support for mandatory GMO labeling.

What major unintended consequences are you babbling about now? Seems to me that "mutation" is also a form of GMOs. Which would mean they would be labelled as well if this goes through. Duh.

Did you miss the part I bolded? I bolded it so that you wouldn't miss it, which suggests you aren't even bothering to read my posts.

The randomness makes mutagenesis less precise than St. Louis-based Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, the NAS said in a 2004 report. It’s the breeding technique most likely to cause unintended genetic changes, some of which could harm human health, the academy said.

And now that you accept mutagenesis being a method to genetically modify an organism and the method most likely to cause harm to human health, shall we move on to plant tissue culture breeding that allows two different plants that don't sexually reproduce to be combined into a new seed, which also alters hundreds of unknown genes? Don't you realize that every seed in existence has been genetically modified by humans though countless breeding techniques?

And how can mutation bred varieties be labeled when many plant breeders in the past have been secretive about their methods of breeding? We are talking about a method that has been used since 1950 and has spawned over 3,000 seed varieties that have been introduced into the food supply. How exactly is everyone supposed to trace the complete history of breeding processes of every single commercial seed in use - most of which have been bred, and rebred, and cross bred (with plant tissue culture breeding), and mutation bred many generations ago?

 

[maurile]

Some here may be familiar with potholer54's terrific series of videos on Creationism, and then subsequently on climate change.

He's got one now on GMOs.

Genetic Modification -- science vs belief