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

[edward]

Herbicide resistance predates Roundup Ready. It even predates Roundup. Roundup resistant pest species have nothing to do with GMO.

Picky picky picky : ) I mentioned Roundup because it was the herbicide of choice used by Monsanto when they created the GMO. This was the first incidence of a widely used GMO becoming obsolete due to weed resistance to the herbicide the GMO was created to tolerate. If you read the links you will see that the same is expected in the future with whatever GMO and herbicide it has been developed to tolerate.

 

[russ_watters]

Evolution has just proven itself. Our first wide scale venture into to GMO has given us weeds that have adapted to Roundup herbicide. So now that we have knowledge of the unexpected consequences of the first round of GMO what is going to happen?

In addition to what V50 pointed out, Roundup resistance also predates roundup ready modification, so you've got the entire issue backwards.

...This was the first incidence of a widely used GMO becoming obsolete due to weed resistance ...

Roundup Ready is not obsolete - it's still on the market (and indeed now that its patent is expired a generic version was recently produced).

If you read the links you will see that the same is expected in the future with whatever GMO and herbicide it is developed to tolerate.

Of course. It is expected that most pesticides/herbicides will become less effective over time as weeds/bugs adapt. That's part of the reason why resistant crops are needed/created. Again, you've got the entire issue backwards.

 

[Evo]

Yet now in the house is bill H.R. 4432 Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014 which favors GMO products see


https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4432/text

You seem to be out of date.

H.R. 4432 (113th): Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014Introduced:
Apr 9, 2014
113th Congress, 2013–2015

Status:
Died in a previous Congress
This bill was introduced on April 9, 2014, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4432

 

[gleem]

Re: H.R. 4432

I saw that it was sent back to committee but did not know it died. So I guess that a win for the anti GMO faction.

 

[BWV]

Perhaps worth mentioning that drought resistance is another key goal of GMO crops and no issue of evolutionary resistance there

Also pest resistance does have evolutionary dynamics but at least the goal is reduced use of pesticides which are at least as subject to evolution

 

[Evo]

Re: H.R. 4432

I saw that it was sent back to committee but did not know it died. So I guess that a win for the anti GMO faction.

Yeah and a win for the uninformed isn't a win, is it? Political caving to lobbyists. It's no longer about the science but about the politics.

 

[edward]

Of course. It is expected that most pesticides/herbicides will become less effective over time as weeds/bugs adapt. That's part of the reason why resistant crops are needed/created. Again, you've got the entire issue backwards.

In what time frame is it expected ? Monsanto never mentioned anything about resistance happening this fast.

Monsanto, which once argued that resistance would not become a major problem, now cautions against exaggerating its impact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Paul Uszak]

Just to throw in my Zloty's worth:-

Just to flesh me out, I consider myself a Transhumanist, man of the World and not uneducated. I am disinterested in GMO. The previous three pages have been interesting, and I appreciate that this is a scientific forum, but one thing that seems to have been omitted is the People. The People pay for this research and are the beneficiaries of it. Science cannot operate in a vacuum (get it?). It must not operate for science's benefit only. Science without social context and acceptance will always be fraught with distrust and derision.

Clearly anti GMO rhetoric is pervasive and powerful, yet by no means the most dangerous anti science movement. Embryology, Creationism and (in the UK) on shore wind are equally controversial. Scientists cannot be elevated to a high podium from where they dictate what is in our best interest without consultation. Smoking is bad for me, yet I smoke. The debate cannot only be an elitist conversation reserved for the chattering classes. The scientific community cannot impose their will on the People because they know best. That's a dark road to totalitarianism.

Sometimes, whatever the apparent benefits, the people must be allowed to say no.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In what time frame is it expected ? Monsanto never mentioned anything about resistance happening this fast.

1. Whether or not Monsanto is good at predicting how fast resistance develops in weeds is irrelevant to the question of the safety of GMOs.
2. It's hard to blame herbicide resistance on Roundup-Ready GMOs since, as Russ says, it predates it.

 

[Evo]

Sometimes, whatever the apparent benefits, the people must be allowed to say no.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Uninformed people should not be allowed to make decisions, much less decisions based on hysterics and misinformation.

 

[gleem]

Sometimes, whatever the apparent benefits, the people must be allowed to say no.

Yes like what to eat. I think it is call Democracy. Surely monkeying with the food supply, source or chain is something that can have a lot of sociological or political implications like privacy issues do. Food could be used as a medium for all sorts of mischief. Gene splicing research seems to be distrusted because of its applications which force people to accept it when their questions are not fully answered to their satisfaction. Certainly making it a major part of our food supply is not warranted at this time. People should have a choice when it only affects themselves and those for home they are responsible.

There are many religious customs that are not necessarily logical to most of us but can we require them to abandon these customs for our convenience. This is a difficult question even when the abandonment of a custom is patently necessary for example in the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Such situations are a slippery slope in human relations. Recall, some educated or otherwise knowledgeable persons in the US during the early twentieth century believed and taught that eugenics was justified and necessary.

 

[William White]

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Uninformed people should not be allowed to make decisions, much less decisions based on hysterics and misinformation.

thats a dangerous position to take; because somebody has to decide who is informed enough.

Universal suffrage means that uninformed people make decisions about who implements policy on their behalf. We may despair at the outcome sometimes, but the alternative is very horrible.

If, you have a politican that wants to promote a particular crop in their constituency, and another that does not; it is for the people - informed or not - to decide.

 

[Evo]

thats a dangerous position to take; because somebody has to decide who is informed enough.

We'll agree to disagree then. When it comes to matters of health and safety, like vaccines, medications, and yes, foods, it should not up to the misinformed masses to make decisions on a broad scale that affects many. There are people trying to prevent GMO food from even being consumed simply out of irrational fear.

 

[gleem]

There are people trying to prevent GMO food from even being consumed.

How are they preventing the consumption of GMO food? Right now all hear is that there is a concern for the safety of this product. An that is anybody's right even if they are wrong.

 

[William White]

We'll agree to disagree then. When it comes to matters of health and safety, like vaccines, medications, and yes, foods, it should not up to the misinformed masses to make decisions on a broad scale that affects many. There are people trying to prevent GMO food from even being consumed simply out of irrational fear.

Then you have to decide who makes the decision, and you have to decide who decides who can make the decision: eventually you keep going until you short circuit that process and have a dictatorship, or you continue to the end and have representative democracy.

Experts should be there to advise, not decide, so that representatives can make the best possible decision based on their mandate.

For example, in the USA, the decision on medication on broad scale that affects many has been a bone of contention for decades; and in the end result was a watered down Obama-care. In the UK NICE make decisions about medications available on the NHS, but ultimtely, NHS policy - on the broadest scale - is determined at the ballot box.

Another example is the building of nuclear power stations, and HLW depositories. In the UK there is a triple lock, which means that after the experts have given their advice; the local people - at town, borough and county level make the decision. Recently, a planned depository in Cumbria was struck down after 1 out of 3 of the triple locks failed at the ballot.

So, I agree that people are prevening GM food out of fear. But who does this planet belong to (rather, who are the custodians)? We are. If we want better governance, then have a better educated people. Do not short circuit them because they are irrational.

 

[Evo]

How are they preventing the consumption of GMO food? Right now all hear is that there is a concern for the safety of this product. An that is anybody's right even if they are wrong.

If you read through the thread you'll see posts on which countries are passing laws and advising against it, it's been going on for years.

 

[gleem]

Then that is their choice, They are not burning field of GMO crops then or derailing trains carrying GMO food. They are fully in their right to boycott anything they think is not in their interest but they cannot, should not prevent me from obtaining GMO food if I want.

Back in the 50's when fluoride was added to public water supplies to improve dental health there was an outcry of concerned citizens about the safety of this policy. Of course as it turned out it died as the value and safety of this policy became evident. But GMO foods are not the same, first the safety of GMO is not established beyond a doubt IMO and second GMO food production is especially beneficial for a few companies which will have absolute control over this product and thirdly it will probably introduce its genetic material into all compatible plants with the possible result of unintended consequences.

Let the debates continue and ask for more definitive testing by unbiased researchers.

 

[edward]

1. Whether or not Monsanto is good at predicting how fast resistance develops in weeds is irrelevant to the question of the safety of GMOs.
2. It's hard to blame herbicide resistance on Roundup-Ready GMOs since, as Russ says, it predates it.

Monsanto is supposedly the expert and they were wrong about adaptation. That is a safety issue, farmers ended up using more herbicide instead of less. Are we just to go on endlessly developing mew GMO's and new herbicides?

The union of Concerned Scientists focuses on that issue in the link.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/rise-of-superweeds.pdf

 

[Student100]

Are we just to go on endlessly developing mew GMO's and new herbicides?

Sort of like the way we just go on endlessly developing new antibiotics?

There is no alternative.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Edward, you are continuing to blame GMOs from Monsanto before Roundup-Ready seeds even existed. That's, at best, illogical.

 

[mheslep]

How are they preventing the consumption of GMO food?

By raising its price, or attempting to do so

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[edward]

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.

 

[gleem]

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?

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.

 

[William White]

Personal opinions are not acceptable.

err

...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.

 

[QST]

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.

 

[William White]

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.

 

[256bits]

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 )

 

[Evo]

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/

 

[William White]

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?

There are people trying to prevent GMO food from even being consumed simply out of irrational fear.

That, is an opinion.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[William White]

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.

 

[edward]

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.

 

[Edwina Lee]

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?

 

[edward]

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 .

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[Evo]

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!

 

[edward]

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.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

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?

 

[BWV]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[BWV]

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?

 

[brainpushups]

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.

 

[Evo]

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

 

[BWV]

Why stop at labeling GMOs, shouldn't all Artifically Selected Organisms be labelled in the interests of providing choice and information to consumers?

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...ling-of-asos-artificially-selected-organisms/

 

[Evo]

Why stop at labeling GMOs, shouldn't all Artifically Selected Organisms be labelled in the interests of providing choice and information to consumers?

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...ling-of-asos-artificially-selected-organisms/

My favorite from that petition

And concludes:

80 percent of Americans support mandatory labels on food containing DNA.

 

[edward]

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.

 

[edward]

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. :: )

 

[mheslep]

...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.

 

[256bits]

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 ).