Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Is there any scientific basis for Proposition 37?

  1. Nov 3, 2012 #1
    I'm sure you've all heard of Prop 37, but I'll write a short introduction. In the state of California, which is located in the United States, residents can vote on a proposition. That proposition becomes law if they vote in favor of it.

    Proposition 37 was created in response to the belief that using genetic modification in agriculture is harmful. To date, we have scientific evidence to support this idea. Just Google "gmo evidence".

    Proposition 37 wil require that, with a few exceptions*, if a food item contains genetically modified ingredients, the manufacturer must state on a label that it contains genetically modified ingredients.

    Fifty other countries already have similar laws.

    What are your thoughts on the proposition?

    *The state constitution allows a ballot initiative to cover only one topic. Therefore, there are a few exceptions. These exceptions include foods sold in restaurants, foods originating from a genetically modified animal (though you're unlikely to find such foods), and foods that unintentionally include genetically modified ingredients.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 3, 2012 #2
    I trust the scientists who say there is no evidence:

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...ts-say-no-to-genetically-modified-food-labels

    There are no adverse health effects from eating genetically modified organisms. You are wrong.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2012
  4. Nov 3, 2012 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Just google it" is not acceptable substantiation on PF. Please cite some credible, mainstream evidence to support your claim about it being harmful and your claim about why Prop37 was created.

    On this issue, I agree with AngryCitizen and that NPR link.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2012
  5. Nov 3, 2012 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    This is a bit moronic. For example, would bud-grafting be considered as "genetic modification"? After all, you are combining the DNA of different plant species together. Is that "modified" enough?

    The issue of safety is a scientific issue. It isn't validated by a popularity vote.

    Zz.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2012
  6. Nov 3, 2012 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think it's misleading and should not be approved.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
  7. Nov 3, 2012 #6
    If the organization says they are tested more extensively ... then it must be true!!!!
    But the blog fails in any explanation of what sort of tests are done with 'genetically' modified versus 'not genetically' modified, so the statement lacks any scientific basis of fact to make any comparison.
     
  8. Nov 3, 2012 #7
    Um.. yes. I think I do trust the largest scientific organization in the nation, publisher of Science. Your conspiratorial attitude towards the scientific establishment is noted, and I wonder how much longer this thread can continue in a forum that explicitly forbids such pseudo-science.
     
  9. Nov 3, 2012 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    SIGH

    more...

    http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml

    more...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124140103.htm
     
  10. Nov 3, 2012 #9

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    More.

    continued...

    http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full
     
  11. Nov 3, 2012 #10
    There are issues with genetically modified foods, but health or safety isn't one of them. For example, if I buy a genetically modified plant, the company who sold it to me retains patent rights over the plant, including the seeds. So, I'd be infringing on the patent to take the seeds from the previous year's crop to start a new crop.

    It gets even more confusing when the genetically modified gene becomes so prevalent that the vast majority of any one crop has this genetic modification. Then, the patent company could theoretically go after any farmer it wanted.

    This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way. Such a case is making its way through the legal system right now. Here is a Wired article about the case:

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/arstechnica-agriculture-patents/
    To summarize, a farmer just bought random commodity soybeans from the market and planted them, and he was sued. The farmer lost his case in district court, and the Supreme Court agreed last month to hear it:

    http://m.npr.org/news/Technology/162949288
     
  12. Nov 3, 2012 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This is off topic.
     
  13. Nov 3, 2012 #12
    Not a conspirational attitude and not pseudo science.
    Why you came to that consideration does not follow from any logic.
    By the way, I was questioning why the blog did not list references in support of the statement and not your posting.

    Evo found references most easily. The blogger could have done and should have done so also.
     
  14. Nov 3, 2012 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The NPR article listed numerous sites backing them up. You wanted even more specific information, which was not required from the person that posted, as they were simply referring to information in the article.
     
  15. Nov 3, 2012 #14
    Doubting the word of the AAAS is conspiratorial.
     
  16. Nov 3, 2012 #15

    Averagesupernova

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Personally I have not taken sides on whether GMO food is as safe. GMO is driven by private industry for profit. That is certainly no guarantee that it is safe. To think that Monsanto has no influence over any studies done on these crops is kind of naive.
    -
    Some of these patents are ready to expire or have already expired. But, the seed companies continue to come up with better technology so it is not economical for a farmer to hold back seed for next year on old technology. It isn't practical to do with corn anyway since for many many years seedcorn has been a hybrid. Replanting last years corn crop that averaged X bushels/acre will most likely yield a small fraction of X bushel/acre this year. So, in a nutshell, without the patents we would not have GMO.
    -
    Personlly I believe that if GMO is actually safe as many believe then a more proactive approach needs to be taken concerning patents. The first event we had with GMO was Roundup Ready. Over the years this has evolved and improved slightly in how/where the gene is inserted to improve yield since only its presence affected yield but the overall result is the same concerning the reason it was put there in the first place which is weed control. As far as I am concerned, the Roundup Ready genie is out of the bottle and the fun is over. No matter how clever some geneticist is, that patent should expire. For many years independent seed companies (prior to be swallowed up by Monsanto) tried alot of crossbreeding to come up with the hybrids that yielded better. No patents were issued to them, nor is anyone issuing patents on crossbreeding today. Crossbreeding to come up with a hybrid is NOT GMO. I could see where it would be ethical to patent this practice in the very beginning but if it were done it has expired many many years ago as it should have. There have been many other patents on seed for various reasons but all so far as I know for pest control of some kind. My opinions on this are the same.
     
  17. Nov 3, 2012 #16
    I wish I could cite sources, but unfortunately none come to mind.

    One rather interesting thing to note: The USDA says it does not consider GMO's to be organic.

    Anyways, I for one want the public to know what they're eating. As the Prop. 37 proponents say, if GMO's are safe, why not say that on the label?

    Monsanto is a careless company. Just ask anyone from Anniston, Alabama. Chances are good you'll find someone whose blood was found to contain over 2 ppb of PCB, which is the amount that is considered safe for humans.
     
  18. Nov 3, 2012 #17

    Averagesupernova

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can't feel sorry for Vernon Bowman in post #10. He has purchased soybean seed from Monsanto in the past and knows all about the patent agreement. My guess is that he did not buy the soybean seed like he said. He kept it back from the previous year. Why would anyone take a chance on planting soybeans that might be Roundup Ready? Spray them for weed control and they die. Well there goes a years income... In my opinion he knew exactly what he was doing even if he did purchase from a local elevator like he said. There are different maturation rates for various soybeans as well as other traits and guess what? They all get mixed together at the elevator. I just don't buy it. No farmer is going to leave something like this to chance. There is too much riding on the seed.
     
  19. Nov 3, 2012 #18
    What if I tattooed some label on your forehead, but not on anyone else's forehead? People would start to wonder why you're different from the rest.

    Point being, there are five products that come to mind which carry labels: tobacco, alcohol, soy, milk, and peanuts. The first two carry labels because they are known to be deadly poisons that can impair one's health and one's state of mind. The latter three carry labels because they are known to be deadly or dangerous to a percentage of the population who are allergic or intolerant. In other words, they are labeled because they are known to have potentially adverse health effects on your body.

    Now what about GMOs? What literature exists supporting the notion that GMOs are dangerous to even 0.00001% of the population? None, according to the AAAS.

    Let me ask you a question. If it's all about "consumer choice", why don't we label how many grasshoppers were in a one mile radius of the plant in question upon being uprooted from the ground? What about the mean number of grasshoppers that traversed the area in a single hour during all full moons that were experienced during the plant's life? What about the standard deviation of individual grasshopper counts during a full day when they were measured on a per-hour basis? These are all equally relevant to the discussion of whether the organism was genetically modified.

    Or, if you want to be silly, just buy organic. Like you said, the USDA regulates organic foods, and GMOs are not organic. Simple as that.
     
  20. Nov 3, 2012 #19

    Averagesupernova

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Angry Citizen, I assume the grasshopper comment is a joke. But most things that have been done with our food supply, even considering the grasshoppers, up until GMO has been able to happen easily without human intervention. Even cross breeding. It has probably happened for thousands of years without concern. Either we evolved with it or it is of no concern to begin with. You cannot say that of GMO. I am not saying it is unsafe, just saying that it is not inherently safe as pre-GMO is since that has been proven over and over.
     
  21. Nov 3, 2012 #20
    Yes, I can, because the mechanism for genetically modifying organisms is not different from normal mutation and artificial selection, and because the available literature and the overwhelming consensus of scientists suggests that there is no difference.

    I accept the scientific consensus on the matter. Maybe you should too.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2012
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is there any scientific basis for Proposition 37?
  1. Are there propositions (Replies: 14)

Loading...