Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement

  • News
  • Thread starter BWV
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Movement
In summary: I disagree with the policy of using freedom of information act to demand full access to scientists' emails in order to intimidate and harassment them.
  • #71
gleem said:
How are they preventing the consumption of GMO food?
By raising its price, or attempting to do so
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
What about "golden rice" anyone here against it?

http://www.goldenrice.org/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...en-rice-a-world-of-controversy-over-gmo-foods

It has been banned in Africa due to environmentalists that oppose GMO.

Golden Rice Opponents Should Be Held Accountable for Health Problems Linked to Vitamain A Deficiency
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...lth-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/

By 2002, Golden Rice was technically ready to go. Animal testing had found no health risks. Syngenta, which had figured out how to insert the Vitamin A–producing gene from carrots into rice, had handed all financial interests over to a non-profit organization, so there would be no resistance to the life-saving technology from GMO opponents who resist genetic modification because big biotech companies profit from it. Except for the regulatory approval process, Golden Rice was ready to start saving millions of lives and preventing tens of millions of cases of blindness in people around the world who suffer from Vitamin A deficiency.

It’s still not in use anywhere, however, because of the opposition to GM technology.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
Vanadium 50 said:
Edward, you are continuing to blame GMOs from Monsanto before Roundup-Ready seeds even existed. That's, at best, illogical.

I keep mentioning Monsanto because they developed the first and most widely used GMO to date. It could have been general Electric! To keep coming up with products that encourage farmers to keep planting the same crop in the same field year after year is illogical because it is unsustainable. GMO is here to stay, but we have to use it wisely.
 
  • #74
mheslep said:
By raising its price, or attempting to do so

I don't see the logic in that. If there is not a demand then the market will force the price down. who is controlling the pricing? Not Monsanto, not the farmers, not the grocery chains ( Fresh Market probably does't carry GMO products), not government that I am aware so who?

edward said:
To keep coming up with products that encourage farmers to keep planting the same crop in the same field year after year is illogical because it is unsustainable. GMO is here to stay, but we have to use it wisely.

Who is discouraging crop rotation, Monsanto and why? I live in agricultural area and corn and soy, both available as GMO crops, are rotated annually and have been so as long as I can remember.
 
  • #75
Evo said:
Personal opinions are not acceptable.
err
Evo said:
...it should not up to the misinformed masses to make decisions on a broad scale that affects many...
that's your opinion?

Of COURSE personal opinions are acceptable

One can argue the science - and remove personal opinion as much as possible (but never entirely) and one can argue the policy

They are the two sides of the same coin, but as with most things that are regulated, the coin is often weighted in favour of policy, which is all about public acceptanceArguing purely the same old science is pointless when there is a consensus. This is where scientists and engineers fail. The evidence that man is changing the climate; that nuclear power is safe; that GM crops are safe and healthy is not worth a lot if the policy cannot be communicated.

The uniformed masses (said with a sneer?) make decisions without reading peer-reviewed papers and technical reports (the safety case for Sellafield Nucelar Power Station in cumbria filled FOUR articulated lorry trailers). They have other things to do in their time.

Scientists need to condense that to a one minute sentence, to advice and inform policy. Because personal opinions are what needs to be informed and changed.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
Actually, the greatest anti-science movement is from within the science community. When non-scientists see scientists acting as bullies and not allowing freedom of discussion on various topics, lobbying to get legislation passed to stymie free discussion or forcing people to accept things a certain way, keeping things hidden such as what products are GMO, fudging the figures on experiments, putting a certain spin on scientific interpretation, all this causes the general public to not trust the science community. That is the most dangerous thing to science.
 
  • #77
yes, its called

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

People have opinions, and come to those opinions, for various reasons. It goes without saying that people think their opinion is the correct one (otherwise why have it!?)

To rubbish an opinion, or dismiss it, because it is not based on peer-reviewed science is absurd.

Many of my opinions - all of our opinions - are not based on peer-reviewed science.

When it comes to matters of public policy, we need to understand the language of people that are not interested in peer reviewed science; and communicate effectively - something scientists and engineers are very very bad at.
 
  • #78
gleem said:
I don't see the logic in that. If there is not a demand then the market will force the price down. who is controlling the pricing? Not Monsanto, not the farmers, not the grocery chains ( Fresh Market probably does't carry GMO products), not government that I am aware so who?

Who is discouraging crop rotation, Monsanto and why? I live in agricultural area and corn and soy, both available as GMO crops, are rotated annually and have been so as long as I can remember.

The application of fertilizer and pesticides has made the land for growing a commodity more productive. More to sell and more profit for the farmer. Less tillage. Less use of fuel and other related expenses. Less summerfallow necessary fo the land to re-cuperate nutrients, and with it, the reduction or elimination of germination of weeds into next years crop. GMO handly falls into this concept of farming with its no-tillage or reduced tillage. If Monsanto ( as the prime example ) did not make a profit they would not be in the game. If farmers would not make a profit neither would they.

Usually the way it works ( or it did , might be some changes that I don't know about ) but a farmer will contract to grow a GMO crop and Monsanto or their agent/representaive will agree to buy a certain amount of the produce at harvest at a certain price. By signing the contract, the farmer buys the certified seed and at harvest is guaranteed a set gross income. Whether the farmer decides to use pesticede for weed control and to fertilize the crop is up to him/her, but in order to get the most amount of crop, an application of weed control would push the reward of $/acre upwards. Indeed, any overproduction above the contract amount may be purchased by the agent from the farmer at the contract price, or perhaps above/below if market conditions so warrent.

The farmer can decide to not pursue that avenue as above and select other crop(s) as he sees fit. In either case, he/her will make the choice on stability of return, gross income-expenses - in other words piece of mind and maximization of profit.

After harvest, the agent is in possesion of the commodity. He will fulfill future contracts made with other buyers, either domestically or perhaps internationally. And sell on the open market, where supply and demand, or rather ask and bid, sets the price.

And supply and demand ends up being determined by the fickle end consumer, who really can only eat so much, so if the price of beek steak is too high, perhaps it will be chicken, or perhaps no meat and its vegetarian today. Most consumers like cheap food.

Without pesticides or fertilizer for the farmer to use, the food price at the supermarket might be just a tad bit painfully higher.

( quality is another issue - I hate hard yellow bananas, hard ripe looking peaches, ... etc )
 
  • #79
William White said:
yes, its called

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

People have opinions, and come to those opinions, for various reasons. It goes without saying that people think their opinion is the correct one (otherwise why have it!?)

To rubbish an opinion, or dismiss it, because it is not based on peer-reviewed science is absurd.

Many of my opinions - all of our opinions - are not based on peer-reviewed science.

When it comes to matters of public policy, we need to understand the language of people that are not interested in peer reviewed science; and communicate effectively - something scientists and engineers are very very bad at.
I take it that you haven't read our rules? I don't see that you have.

From our Global Guidelines

  • We wish to discuss mainstream science.That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.
Mission Statement:

Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

Acceptable Sources:
Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed here:

http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/

Use the search feature to search for journals by words in their titles. If you have problems with the search feature, you can view the entire list here:

http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER

In recent years, there has been an increasing number of "fringe" and Internet-only journals that appear to have lax reviewing standards. We do not generally accept references from such journals. Note that some of these fringe journals are listed in Thomson Reuters. Just because a journal is listed in Thomson Reuters does not mean it is acceptable.

In addition to the Global Guidelines, Current Events has additional guidelines.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/must-read-current-events-guidelines.113181/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
Evo said:
I take it that you haven't read our rules? I don't see that you have.

From our Global Guidelines

In your opinion only educated people can make decisions on science and technology that affects them. That was not a scientific statement you made; you did not back it up with peer-reviewed science - you expressed an opinion! (an opnion that is just as valid as any other, but an opinion nontheless)

Maybe you should follow the rules?

Evo said:
There are people trying to prevent GMO food from even being consumed simply out of irrational fear.
That, is an opinion.
 
  • #81
William White said:
In your opinion only educated people can make decisions on science and technology that affects them. That was not a scientific statement you made, you expressed an opinion!

Maybe you should follow the rules?
Opinions can be expressed, we don't accept literature that are opinion pieces, only, which is what I was discussing.

I quoted the rules, the rules are not my opinion.

If you wish to post here, you will need to follow our guidelines.
 
  • #82
Evo said:
Opinions can be expressed, we don't accept literature that are opinion pieces, only, which is what I was discussing.

I quoted the rules, the rules are not my opinion.

great, call me out when I post literature that is an opinion piece.
 
  • #83
gleem said:
I don't see the logic in that. If there is not a demand then the market will force the price down. who is controlling the pricing? Not Monsanto, not the farmers, not the grocery chains ( Fresh Market probably does't carry GMO products), not government that I am aware so who?
Who is discouraging crop rotation, Monsanto and why? I live in agricultural area and corn and soy, both available as GMO crops, are rotated annually and have been so as long as I can remember.

You need to read some of the links I have provided. Mono cropping is the nature of the beast. One crop = one set of equipment. One GMO crop means other non GMO fields can't be close by because of the possibility of over spray. Farmers used to plant two or three varieties of the same crop to get different harvest times. They can no longer do that if one of them is GMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
There is a huge gap of knowledge about genetic modification between the public and those pushing it. So I like to know answers to the questions that are top of my mind:-

[1] The technique of genetic manipulation depends on a certain virus to bind to DNA to cut and insert. Can this virus therefore malfunction and start deleting inserting all kinds of things into DNA and cause mutation leading to cancers if the plant or animal is eaten as food?

[2] Insect repelling GMOs that is based on genetically producing insecticide inside the plant. Is there sufficient studies to prove the safety of this as human food or animal feed?

[3] Insecticide and herbicide tolerant GMOs especially the Monsanto kind. Is there enough studies and monitoring to prove that such foods are safe to eat for humans & animals?
 
  • #85
It will be interesting to see the law suits that come about when one farmer's off patent Monsanto GMO corn is cross pollinated by Monsanto's new GMO corn. We have to have some organization before hand. There are now 6 companies in the GMO field.

Farmers from over 20 states have filed a suit against Syngenta. Corn grown for export to many countries can not be GMO, or contaminated by GMO.

http://farmfutures.com/story-more-farmers-file-suit-against-syngenta-mir-162-gmo-corn-trait-release-0-121757

Bayer has been ordered to pay $750 million to farmers whose rice crops meant for export to China were contaminated by Bayer's GMO rice.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-01/bayer-to-pay-750-million-to-end-lawsuits-over-genetically-modified-rice .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
Edwina Lee said:
There is a huge gap of knowledge about genetic modification between the public and those pushing it. So I like to know answers to the questions that are top of my mind:-

...
I thought somebody had already posted this graphic from the FDA but I don't see it up-thread now. One general answer to your questions is why would one expect more risk now than would have been expected from the "traditional" slap-dash gene mixing schemes used for the last many thousands of years.

ucm352115.png
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Evo
  • #87
edward said:
It will be interesting to see the law suits that come about when one farmer's off patent Monsanto GMO corn is cross pollinated by Monsanto's new GMO corn. We have to have some organization before hand. There are now 6 companies in the GMO field.

Farmers from over 20 states have filed a suit against Syngenta. Corn grown for export to many countries can not be GMO, or contaminated by GMO.

http://farmfutures.com/story-more-farmers-file-suit-against-syngenta-mir-162-gmo-corn-trait-release-0-121757

Bayer has been ordered to pay $750 million to farmers whose rice crops meant for export to China were contaminated by Bayer's GMO rice.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-01/bayer-to-pay-750-million-to-end-lawsuits-over-genetically-modified-rice .
This thread really is about misconceptions of the safety of GMO crops, not the political/financial issues, let's please keep this discussion on OP's topic.

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
Evo said:
This thread really is about misconceptions of the safety of GMO crops, not the political/financial issues, let's please keep this discussion on OP's topic.

Thanks!

Sorry about that. I got a little carried away when I saw those two links. Google is getting more and more like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #89
Having been a farmer and fought with weeds and thoroughly investigated things, I am a fan of Round-up Ready. Round-up is much safer than most other alternatives on the same weeds (2, 4 - D, for example).

But the thing with GMO foods (and vaccines) is that proponents like to paint with a broad brush, treat things as "settled science" and appoint government bureaucrats to decide which vaccines and GMO foods are approved in the future.

Just because there is good science showing currently available GMO foods and vaccines are safe, does not mean that there may not be GMO foods or future vaccines which are not safe. Diligence and good information are needed for all future products.

Ultimately, in democratic societies, governmental decisions are left to a political process. If the education systems have failed and produced a general public that is too poorly informed to support rational policies, should we trust the scientists instead? Aren't these the same scientists who perform double duty as educators and allowed the education system to fail. If they cannot fix the education system, should they be trusted with the food supply?
 
  • Like
Likes brainpushups, Greg Bernhardt and Evo
  • #90
The part of this argument that reminds me the most of vaccine denialism is the demands for total certainty in regards for safety with no consideration of the risks of not doing anything. For example, if every single case of autism was caused by vaccines, vaccinating your kids would still be a good idea. similarly if GMOs turn out to be responsible for an increase in some cancer (something there is no evidence for), the cost would be worth it if the technology enables agricultural yields to meet the food requirements of the global population. The FAO projects a 70% increase in food production is necessary by 2050 to feed the estimated population of 10 billion ( http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/pdf/s40066-015-0031-7.pdf). Agricultural yields have to increase as no significant sources of new farmland exist. I am not aware of any technology other than GM that has a chance of meeting this need. Ignoring the health and political consequences of not feeding people in favor catering to westerners perfectionistic 'first world' sensibilities appears to me as criminally stupid.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #91
I would rather see our politicians make an effort to create public awareness that GMO foods are safe than to jump on the bandwagon to create doubt by forcing labeling, because, if it has to be labeled, there must be something wrong or potentially dangerous that I should avoid? Right? Why else force labeling? IMHO. Labeling will just create more doubts.
 
  • #92
GTOM said:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

Found that one, the links on the site looks like real to me at first glimpse (but sorry I'm no expert.)

Collective Evolution is a crap pseudoscience site
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Collective_Evolution

But to my earlier point, if every one of those points was 100% true, but GMOs enabled people to eat who otherwise would not, what is the trade off? If you had to choose between hunger and taking those risks what would you decide?
 
  • #93
Evo said:
I would rather see our politicians make an effort to create public awareness that GMO foods are safe than to jump on the bandwagon to create doubt by forcing labeling, because, if it has to be labeled, there must be something wrong or potentially dangerous that I should avoid? Right? Why else force labeling? IMHO. Labeling will just create more doubts.

Why does it have to be interpreted that way? I recognize that you are implying that is the tactic of the anti-GMOers, but certainly a label doesn't necessarily signify something negative. Maybe a PR campaign so that anything that contains GMO 'gets' to be labeled (not 'has' to be labeled). The PR could focus on some of the points made in this thread by those arguing how great GMO is. We could have a 'GMO certified' label analogous to the 'certified organic' label.
 
  • #94
brainpushups said:
Why does it have to be interpreted that way? I recognize that you are implying that is the tactic of the anti-GMOers, but certainly a label doesn't necessarily signify something negative. Maybe a PR campaign so that anything that contains GMO 'gets' to be labeled (not 'has' to be labeled). The PR could focus on some of the points made in this thread by those arguing how great GMO is. We could have a 'GMO certified' label analogous to the 'certified organic' label.
I'm just saying that a lot of people will considered the labeling as a warning. IMHO
 
  • #96
  • Like
Likes Czcibor
  • #97
Dr. Courtney said:
Having been a farmer and fought with weeds and thoroughly investigated things, I am a fan of Round-up Ready. Round-up is much safer than most other alternatives on the same weeds (2, 4 - D, for example).

But the thing with GMO foods (and vaccines) is that proponents like to paint with a broad brush, treat things as "settled science" and appoint government bureaucrats to decide which vaccines and GMO foods are approved in the future.

Just because there is good science showing currently available GMO foods and vaccines are safe, does not mean that there may not be GMO foods or future vaccines which are not safe. Diligence and good information are needed for all future products.
Ultimately, in democratic societies, governmental decisions are left to a political process. If the education systems have failed and produced a general public that is too poorly informed to support rational policies, should we trust the scientists instead? Aren't these the same scientists who perform double duty as educators and allowed the education system to fail. If they cannot fix the education system, should they be trusted with the food supply?

Unfortunately so many weeds have become resistant to Roundup, 24D mixed with Roundup is being used by Dow and dicamba mixed with Roundup is being used by Monsanto. The GMO crops are called stacked as the are "ready" for more than one herbicide.
 
  • #98
Evo said:
My favorite from that petition :)) 80 percent of Americans support mandatory labels on food containing DNA.

People tend not to trust what they don't understand. And it is the government that us saying trust us. :: )
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #99
Dr. Courtney said:
...should they be trusted with the food supply?
Many are trusted with operating the food supply, farmers, grocers, scientists, along with government inspectors who inspect but do not operate. The only certain mistake to it seems to me is to have government exclusively operate the food supply ... as it does so poorly with public education.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #100
BWV said:
The FAO projects a 70% increase in food production is necessary by 2050 to feed the estimated population of 10 billion ( http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/pdf/s40066-015-0031-7.pdf). Agricultural yields have to increase as no significant sources of new farmland exist. I am not aware of any technology other than GM that has a chance of meeting this need. Ignoring the health and political consequences of not feeding people in favor catering to westerners perfectionistic 'first world' sensibilities appears to me as criminally stupid.
And who would be the "criminally stupid"? Who is going to willingly accept an accussation such as that without reciprocating possibly with blowback and being stubborn?

What happens when the world food supply ( as we know it ) is at its maximum production level sometime in the future, and, surprise, people still go hungry. Is one willing to share an excessive portion with someone else so that both can be nourished but not overly intaking? Is one willing to give up wine, chocolate, sweets, and all other luxury "food stuffs" that one does not need to live, so the resources in use for production for these items can be used for basic food items. Such first world problems of choice have a tendency to impact the rest of the planet.
I have no doubt that many " NO to GMO" sign carriers would enjoy a chocolate sunday, and a relax with a bottle of refreshements, after a hard day of protest. I have no doubt though that most people don't really give a crap if its GMO or not what they eat, even if they answer one way or another in support of, or against GMO foodstuff. As long as it is tasty, and they don't get sick, its good to go.

So I guess the " criminally stupid" is the vocal, always in your face, agenda for any reason people, who may have an argumental case, but few of which can offer a full explanation. Sort of in tune with Evo's 'uninformed should not be making decisions' about things they do not know, with reservations that has also been brought up.

GMO's might be called upon as a way to feed the masses, but that argument is irrelevant, and it is not the main incentive for use. Farmers choose GMO's to gain more profit. That is the basic idea when they accept GMO seed. Political acceptance and economics is the driver behind its use. Non-acceptance by governments or politicians can be seen as pandering for votes, or as the 'correct' decision making for their subjects and "looking out for their well-being when no one else will so I don't get ousted" in some non-democratic countries ( although that does apply democratically for some shameless politicians ).
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #101
256bits said:
What happens when the world food supply ( as we know it ) is at its maximum production level sometime in the future, and, surprise, people still go hungry. Is one willing to share an excessive portion with someone else so that both can be nourished but not overly intaking? Is one willing to give up wine, chocolate, sweets, and all other luxury "food stuffs" that one does not need to live, so the resources in use for production for these items can be used for basic food items. Such first world problems of choice have a tendency to impact the rest of the planet.
I can't disagree with what you said, so, how do we go about educating people?

Did you read my post about
Evo said:
What about "golden rice" anyone here against it?
By 2002, Golden Rice was technically ready to go. Animal testing had found no health risks. Syngenta, which had figured out how to insert the Vitamin A–producing gene from carrots into rice, had handed all financial interests over to a non-profit organization, so there would be no resistance to the life-saving technology from GMO opponents who resist genetic modification because big biotech companies profit from it. Except for the regulatory approval process, Golden Rice was ready to start saving millions of lives and preventing tens of millions of cases of blindness in people around the world who suffer from Vitamin A deficiency.

It’s still not in use anywhere, however, because of the opposition to GM technology.


http://www.goldenrice.org/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...en-rice-a-world-of-controversy-over-gmo-foods

It has been banned in Africa due to environmentalists that oppose GMO.http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...lth-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/
 
  • #102
The entire basis of our civilization is creating a framework where the profit motive produces socially desirable outcomes. The fact that it motivates farmers more than the desire to feed their fellow man is irrelevant. We rely on the profit motive for most every aspect our daily existence.
 
  • #103
BWV said:
The entire basis of our civilization is creating a framework where the profit motive produces socially desirable outcomes. The fact that it motivates farmers more than the desire to feed their fellow man is irrelevant. We rely on the profit motive for most every aspect our daily existence.
Sadly, we pay farmers not to grow crops to keep prices up.
Why does the government pay farmers not to grow crops?

Paying farmers not to grow crops was a substitute for agricultural price support programs designed to ensure that farmers could always sell their crops for enough to support themselves. The price support program meant that farmers had to incur the expense of plowing their fields, fertilizing, irrigating, spraying, and harvesting them, and then selling their crops to the government, which stored them in silos until they either rotted or were consumed by rodents. It was much cheaper just to pay farmers not to grow the crops in the first place.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #104
BWV said:
Collective Evolution is a crap pseudoscience site
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Collective_Evolution

But to my earlier point, if every one of those points was 100% true, but GMOs enabled people to eat who otherwise would not, what is the trade off? If you had to choose between hunger and taking those risks what would you decide?

In my country there are no GMO (they claim, that actually certain GMOs like Bt-corn don't help, but damage environment and bioversity more than pesticides, so far i only have hungrian links), and there arent mass starvation, so why should we change that?
(Let alone deny from me the right to know, whether i eat experimental product or no)
 
  • #105
Evo said:
I can't disagree with what you said, so, how do we go about educating people?

Did you read my post about
Quite remarkable that. One would have thought there would have been a clamour to be the first to use the "new" rice.
No wonder Spock finds humans illogical.

Only thing I can think of is to appeal to the irrationality of people.
GMO's have a Frankenstein mystic surrounding them, and the associated fear that people have of the unknown, leads some people to follow along blindly a leader who entices them to grab their pitchforks and burn the whole place down.

Change the marketing of GMO foods.
Make GMO's sound cool and exiting, and at the same time green, responsible, and all that sort of thing.
Even though I did say people like their food cheap, it can't be too cheap, in relation to other product, or there must be something wrong with it, a defect that the producer is trying to unload.

Study the marketing of:
Jeans, which were once the poor man's clothing.
Corn on the cob, which at one time was only food for horses, at least in some areas.
Lobster, and some other bottom feeders, which at one time no respectable person would ever eat.

Perhaps GMO's should come out of their nitch of "food for the masses" to become the "food for the enlightened", or something like that.
Cranberry Juice did it.

Hire the likes of Dr. Oz and the McArthy girl to give endorsements.

That's just some points off the top of my head, so tear it apart as seen fit.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top