News Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement

[Evo]

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

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/

 

[BWV]

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.

 

[Evo]

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/

 

[GTOM]

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)

 

[256bits]

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.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

This debate highlights the basic question of burden of proof and how we address the burden in various areas of consumer product safety.

When a person's internal biases want to reject a new consumer product, they put the burden of proof very high, insisting that advocates and companies prove beyond all doubt that the new product is safe if adopted and used over an entire lifetime.

When a person's internal biases want a new consumer product to be accepted, they shift the burden of proof to the opponents, claiming it is their burden to show definitively that a product is not safe.

From a practical point of view, demanding that products be proven safe for a lifetime is unrealistic. No company can invest in the 20-50 year trials needed to meet this burden. No new products would ever make it to market in cases where this burden is applied. Generally speaking if a product does not appear to be unsafe in several years of diligent testing using widely accepted methods in the industry, it is accepted as safe enough to enter the mainstream marketplace.

However, there have been notable cases (especially pesticides and drugs) where the safety problems do not emerge until after widespread use and adoption. However, given the widespread use and adoption of GMO foods over many years now, a high degree of scientific confidence has emerged that the existing and established GMO foods are safe for consumption.

Just like antibiotics cause pathogens to develop antibiotic resistance in the long term, herbicide resistant crops will cause weeds to develop specific herbicide resistance. This is not a fundamental drawback, but something that needs to be managed with care in the use and application rules to slow the development of resistance to a pace where new technologies and developments will likely stay ahead of it.

There is a strong market for organic foods for consumers who prefer not to participate in the economy of agribusiness, but there is a price premium for organic foods, and what proof does the consumer really have that all the organic production rules are being followed? You can slso still grow your own, which offers the highest assurance of how your food was produced and what it really contains.

 

[GTOM]

I have tryed my best to collect serious sources.
Dr. Courtney, i like what you say. My opinion is, that labeling GMO should be needed, so people could decide, whether to deal with possible merits and risks of new technology or not. After all, all components of foods are marked, i don't see why artifically inserted DNA shouldn't be.

http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/files/golden_rice_debate.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n11/full/nbt1102-1069.html
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/GoldenRiceCaseStudy.pdf

Bohn, T., Traavik, T., Primicerio, R. (2010): Demographic responses of Daphnia magna fed transgenic Bt maize.

Ecotoxicology, 19: 419-430.

Carman, J. A., Vlieger, H. R., Ver Steeg, L. J., Sneller, V. E., Robinson, G. W., Clinch-Jones, C. A., Haynes, J.

I., Edwards, J. W. (2013): A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM

maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1): 38-54.

Chambers, C.P., Whiles, MR, Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Tank, J.L., Royer, T.V., Griffiths, N.A., Evans-White, M.A.,

Stojak, A.R. (2010): Responses of stream macroinvertebrates to Bt maize leaf detritus. Ecological Applications, 20:

1949-1960.

Darvas B., Székács A. (szerk.) (2011): Az elsőgenerációs géntechnológiai úton módosított növények megítélésének

magyarországi háttere (összefoglaló válogatás)

http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Failure-of-Monsanto-Bt-Cotton/2013/12/06/article1930013.ece

Gassmann, A. J., Petzold-Maxwell, J. L., Keweshan, R. S., Dunbar, M. W. (2012): Western corn rootworm and Bt maize:

Challenges of pest resistance in the field. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain, 3

(3): 235-244.

Jensen, P.D., Dively, G.P., Swan, C.M., Lamp, W.O. (2010): Exposure and nontarget effects of transgenic Bt corn

debris in streams. Environmental Entomology, 39: 707-714.

Kramarz, P., de Vaufleury, A., Gimbert, F., Cortet, J., Tabone, E., Andersen, M. N., Krogh P. H. (2009): Effects of

Bt-maize material on the life cycle of the land snail Cantareus aspersus. Applied Soil Ecology, 42: 236-242.

Lang, A., Otto, M. (2010): A synthesis of laboratory and field studies on the effects of transgenic Bacillus

thuringiensis (Bt) maize on non-target Lepidoptera. Entomol Exp Appl, 135: 121-134.

Quist, D., Ignacio, C. (2001): Transgenic DNA Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico.

Nature, 414: 541-543.

Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., Spiroux de

Vendômois, J. (2012): Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.

Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50: 4221-4231.

Tang, G., Hu, Y., Yin, S., Wang, Y., Dallal, G. E., Grusak, M. A., Russell, R. M. (2012): b-Carotene in Golden Rice

is as good as b-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 96:

658-664.

Tank, J., Rosi-Marshall, E., Royer, T., Whiles, M., Griffiths, N., Frauendorf, T. and Treering, D. (2010):

Occurrence of maize detritus and a transgenic insecticidal protein (Cry1Ab) within the stream network of an

agricultural landscape, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107:

17645-17650.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I'm not against labeling, but the political process played itself out, and the US Congress decided against labeling. If neither the consumers nor the voters in the US demand labeling in the numbers required to impact policy change, then it does not happen.

Welcome to the democratic process. You need to change the minds of enough voters and/or consumers to get the desired change. Proponents of labeling have failed in this task.

By now, it's safe to assume that most products containing ingredients for which GMOs are the bulk of the market likely contain them, and that products that do not contain GMOs would have labels or advertisements announcing that fact. Just like lots of products have the label "this product may contain peanuts", many products could have the label "this product may contain GMOs."

 

[brainpushups]

I'm not against labeling, but the political process played itself out, and the US Congress decided against labeling.

It isn't fully played out yet. Many states have passed laws that require a 'trigger' to go into effect because they were worried about expensive lawsuits from corporations. Vermont managed to get a labeling law passed and is currently fighting the legal battle. If they (we; I'm a Vermonter) win then that would set a precedence for other states and you may see labels. I'm actually not sure where everything stands now, but I know that earlier in the summer Neil Young made headlines when he donated $100,000 from his concert tour to a fund that is helping to pay for Vermont's legal costs.

 

[edward]

For many people it isn't a distrust of the individual GMO product. It goes far beyond that to include what happens to the topsoil. How many tons of Herbicides can the soil hold? Roundup supposedly attaches itself to micro particles of soil. Will that soil become saturated? Yet still the biggest known problem with roundup isn't the herbicide it is the surfactants.

The surfactants used with glyphosate are apparently more toxic to aquatic life than the herbicide is. Surfactants are essentially specialized soaps. How much soap can the soil hold before all we can grow is bubbles?

Surfactants:

Surfactants are used in herbicide formulations as wetting agents, to maximize coverage and aid penetration of the herbicide(s) through plant leaves. As agricultural spray adjuvants, surfactants may be premixed in commercial formulations, such as Roundup, or they may be purchased separately and mixed on-site (tank mix).

Polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) is a surfactant used in the original Roundup formulation and is still commonly used today.[84] Different versions of Roundup have included different percentages of POEA. Although Monsanto product fact sheets do not disclose surfactants and their percentages, a 1997 US government report said that Roundup is 15% POEA while Roundup Pro is 14.5%.[85]

A review of the literature provided to the EPA in 1997 found that POEA was more toxic to fish than glyphosate was.[85]

Spreader 90 is a surfactant used in tank mixes.[89] Spreader 90 contains 1,2 propanediol (also known as propylene glycol), propane 1,2,3 triol (also known as glycerol), alcohol ethoxylate, and dimethylpolysiloxane.[90][91] Of these ingredients, alcohol ethoxylates are among the widely used detergents in consumer products; commercial preparations are often mixes of homologs. Due to known toxicities to aquatic species, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 recommended Federal Water Quality Guideline values of 70 µg/l.[92]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Surfactants

This part isn't rocket science it is common sense.

 

[edward]

And excuse me ,but the above post is a part of the so called "Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement" topic. it all came in the same box of worms. Many people have taken a closer look at what comes along with GMO. Some very well educated, well qualified people who specialize in other specific areas have no idea what is being sprayed.

 

[BWV]

All these arguments seem focused on herbicide use which only tangentially related to GMOs. Don't think anyone disagrees that overuse of herbicides can be a problem. Does not really have anything to do with the core issue which is that a large portion of the public and many elected politicians have an irrational fear and want to issue impossible safety standards or blanket prohibitions. What about GM for drought, disease or pest resistance? The activists don't care, nothing stands in the way of their illusory desire for natural purity

 

[edward]

All these arguments seem focused on herbicide use which only tangentially related to GMOs. Don't think anyone disagrees that overuse of herbicides can be a problem. Does not really have anything to do with the core issue which is that a large portion of the public and many elected politicians have an irrational fear and want to issue impossible safety standards or blanket prohibitions. What about GM for drought, disease or pest resistance? The activists don't care, nothing stands in the way of their illusory desire for natural purity

The first GMOs were created specifically so that herbicides could be used directly on the plant. For years all people heard was "Round up Ready", now that they find that it wasn't really quite ready, there are going to be even more skeptics.

I really don't think so many people would be opposed to a disease resistant GMO Vegetable. There are several out there already. But the big money is in selling large amounts of herbicide to farmers who will also buy the corresponding GMO seed and plant it on tens of thousands of acres. With weed resistance always being a factor we are on a treadmill. And I personally am worried about how much of that slush the top soil can hold.

I certainly wish someone would come up with an acorn squash that is resistant to the blasted squash vine borer.

 

[edward]

OK I give up. I spend time typing a post , an alert comes up and my post disappears. Let me know when this is fixed , or not, it has happened twice just today. The alert that came up told me about the post I was already replying to. ?

 

[Evo]

OK I give up. I spend time typing a post , an alert comes up and my post disappears. Let me know when this is fixed , or not, it has happened twice just today. The alert that came up told me about the post I was already replying to. ?

No idea edward, we don't have anything like that. I would suggest writing your post in something like word than copying and pasting it.

 

[Opis]

I think an issue that is ignored in the debate about whether GMO food is safe is the danger that other GMO crops will accidentally enter the food chain. To take a hypothetical example, if a variety of apple is modified to create polymers, then there is a danger that at some point these apples will be mistaken for edible apples.

In fact, it may become no longer possible for people to recognize an apple as an edible fruit because of the danger that they may have picked the wrong sort of apple.

 

[Czcibor]

My favorite from that petition

Maybe that's exactly the way. If masses demand that, give them exactly what they ask for (literally what they ask for, not what they think that ask for). All stuff that contains DNA should be marked accordingly. That actually has a chance to end the discussion. Next step would be marking food with precise explanation concerning how exactly the plant differs from its uncultivated ancestors including main mutations.

 

[russ_watters]

My opinion is, that labeling GMO should be needed, so people could decide, whether to deal with possible merits and risks of new technology or not. After all, all components of foods are marked, i don't see why artifically inserted DNA shouldn't be.

It isn't done precisely because what you said just before it is not true. Consider the amount of information you are given about the contents on a box of cereal compared to the pamphlet you get with a prescription drug. That's the level of detail you are implying exists and GMOs have been improperly exempted from. But it doesn't. Information you don't see now but imply do would include, for example:
-Exact variety of the ingredient, including all cross-bred strains, whether via modern or ancient techniques (that's where GMO strain would go if applicable).
-Location of the farm.
-Soil test results.
-Crop rotation schedule.
-Type, quantity, schedule and application method of all fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.
-Water source, scedule and application method. Water test results.
-Chain of custody
-Inspection results along the chain of custody.

So the reason including a GMO specific label is illogical is precisely because the labeling does not require any other specifics about the ingredients besides the generic name. The purpose of calling-out GMOs specifically is to imply that they are different and therefore imply that they are inferior. It's not just about giving people a choice, it is about giving them a choice and a push.

 

[russ_watters]

For many people it isn't a distrust of the individual GMO product. It goes far beyond that to include what happens to the topsoil. How many tons of Herbicides can the soil hold?
[separate post]
And excuse me ,but the above post is a part of the so called "Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement" topic. it all came in the same box of worms.

It's part of the same can of worms only insofar as "environmentalists" are improperly mixing many separate issues. Part and parcel of the problem is that because they feel like the political aim of going after corporations is righteous, that makes it ok to lie/mislead about the science and use multiple mediocre to wrong arguments as a shotgun attack. Indeed, if the health impacts of GMOs were all there was to the issue, the shotgun approach to attacking GMOs would be much more difficult to mount and the science abuse less.

 

[zonde]

I think that the problem about GMO is the permanent character of the decision. Once particular GMO is out there you can't really do much about it.
And yes people make mistakes and people do things that later on are considered wrong, that's unavoidable. But usually these mistakes have quite limited impact on the future. But this is not the case with GMO (current and future).
Take as an example invasive species. It's change that practically can't be undone.

 

[Evo]

The fact is that humans have been changing vegetables for thousands of years. Our ancestors did not have carrots, potatoes, corn, tomatoes, broccoli, and on and on. These were not naturally selected, so by the new standards are not acceptable. Virtually every food we eat would need to be labeled. It's ridiculous.