Slashdot Mirror
Anti-GMO Activists Win Victory On Hawaiian Island
biobricks writes "New York Times reports on how the county council on the Big Island of Hawaii banned GMOs. 'Urged on by Margaret Wille, the ban’s sponsor, who spoke passionately of the need to “act before it’s too late,” the Council declined to form a task force to look into such questions before its November vote. But Mr. Ilagan, 27, sought answers on his own. In the process, he found himself, like so many public and business leaders worldwide, wrestling with a subject in which popular beliefs often do not reflect scientific evidence. At stake is how to grow healthful food most efficiently, at a time when a warming world and a growing population make that goal all the more urgent.'"
I wouldn't equate pseudoscience-believing hippies with Republicans.
in other words, going after GMO-the-technique is anti-progressive. one should instead go for (federal) regulation of GMO products. even indiscriminate labeling campaigns just naively suppress the technique, both good and bad usages.
ok, (having spoken my peace); on with the pitchforks and burning-brands!
I wouldn't equate pseudoscience-believing hippies with Republicans.
I'm from Hawaii (specifically the Big Island), and that state (and county) is dominated by Democrats who are very, very far from being creationist Republicans. Heck, even our Republicans are more liberal than a lot of mainland Democrats. So yeah - totally pseudoscience hippies. We have a saying (due to our macadamia nut orchards) that we send our nuts (macadamia) to the mainland and they send their nuts (california hippies) to us.
Remember artificial sweeteners? They kept saying there were no health issues to worry about, they had peer-reviewed clinical studies showing no ill effects, and you were getting sweetness without the calories.
It seemed to a lot of us that something was wrong that story, and it turned out something was wrong. What if they had turned out to be right? No problem - those of us who abstained would've just missed the benefits of using their invention for the first 15-20 years. Well, it's the same with GMOs.
I'm not necessarily endorsing a ban, but those who want GMO-free food should be able to buy it from a local grocer.
If growing healthy food is going to done more efficiently, it's going to have require higher crop yields while requiring less oil-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. Growing crops that have a temporary resistance to pests that quickly adapt through natural evolution isn't the way forward.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Let's make this headline more accurate and honest, okay?
These has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown GMO anything to be unhealthy. GMO products have been made for decades and have been intensely studies by people with a vested interest in keeping them out. This range of scientific lunacy is in the same camp as wifi causes cancer and vaccination scaremongering.
Let's get real, this has jack to do with GMO and everything to do with eco naive that get their talking points from greenpeace and protectionism from those countries that haven't started making their own GMO foods yet. Once other countries start making their own versions of GMO foods all of the objections to GMO foods will vanish overnight from everyone that isn't an eco-naive twit.
Field tests to study new G.M.O. crops would also be prohibited. Penalties would be $1,000 per day.
What a joke.
That's a rounding error to a multinational corporation.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Women have the RIGHT to choose to eat GMOs if they want and I stand against this right-wing Republican War on Women since they insist on telling women what to do with their bodies!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
You mean like people who keep claiming that "evolution is just a theory", and that trickle-down economics work?
Hmm, you've a point... there is hard evidence linking screwdrivers to murders all over... maybe GMO is safer than screwdrivers?
We have a saying (due to our macadamia nut orchards) that we send our nuts (macadamia) to the mainland and they send their nuts (california hippies) to us.
In Oregon they call that "being californicated".
So a better analogy for GMOs might not be with screwdrivers, but with concentration camps and gas chambers, which by themselves did no harm.
That is a horribe analogy. A better analogy would be comparing GMOs to Hydrogen Cyanide. GMOs can be used poorly, just like hydrogen cyanide can be used in gas chambers. But both are used for good far more than for evil.
Actually, even mine is a bad analogy. An even better one would be comparing genetically modifying foods with chemical synthesis in general. Both are simply scientific techniques. We can use genetics to change the color of food, make it resistant to pesticides, or create deadly bacteria. Just like we can use chemical synthesis to create table salt, carbonic acid, or hydrogen cyanide.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
More hippy FUD. "....according to the National Cancer Institute and other health agencies, there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the U.S. cause cancer or other serious health problems." http://www.mayoclinic.org/artificial-sweeteners/art-20046936
It all starts at 0
I wouldn't equate "Republican creationists thugs" with republicans.
I would say that creationists and climate change deniers are both associated with republicans the same way anti-GMOs are associated with democrats. But I'd say that creationists and climate change deniers are far, far more dangerous than anti-GMO morons.
You could have read the fine article, which nicely mentions "overuse of pesticides". The current reason to use GMO is raised pesticide/herbicide resistance, which naturally means that farmers are encouraged to go overkill with Roundup and co. to kill of everything else in the area. AFAIK it has also been shown that the poisons used accumulate within the plants, sadly the only health study on that point I know of has been unreliable (the lab animals used hat a naturally high chancer rate).
So while GMOs may not be responsible for the harm done to humans, the pesticides/herbicides sold as part of the package - the only reason GMOs are currently used - are responsible for killing of local plants and insects. It might be overly broad, but it is based on reality and facts.
I wouldn't call it pseudoscience
From the hippie side of things, yes, it is. These are the same people who think that eating an "alkalizing" diet and drinking "alkalized water" is a necessity for being healthy and ridding the body of "toxins." It's pseudoscience because they have BS "science" that "proves" it. For example, there are papers by people with fake phd's that say eating protein means your pee is more acidic, which means your body is toxic. Anyone who remembers high school biology should know why that's BS (and why the "Westernmost Institution for Gaia Science" is not an accredited institution), but they believe it because they've smoked away their high school memories.
Interestingly, at least on Maui, I can't necessarily speak for the Big Island but I'm going to assume parallels, it wasn't the hippies that got the anti-GMO ball rolling, although they're the ones taking off with it. The initial ball-rollers were the taro farmers, and for entirely different (and IMO legitimate) reasons. There are a lot of small independent family (actually a family, not just a big conglomerate owned by a family) taro farmers. With taro (it's like a big potato), much of the planting is done by cutting of the top of the corm (the potato part) and replanting it. They saw what Monsanto was doing with not allowing corn farmers to save seed, and were concerned that if the taro market went to GMO the same thing would happen with taro, where farmers would be entirely dependent on Monsanto and pretty much unable to resist or remain independent.
It is not so much the science of GMOs that is specifically bad but the companies that are typically behind them. These companies have a long history of being James Bond Villain evil, manipulating governments to their will, hurting people in corrupt countries, and pushing other things that are bad like pesticides, herbicides, hormone/antibiotic meat, and vicious anti consumer anti labeling campaigns.
The other thing with most GMOs is that they (the main commercial ones) are aimed at things that on the surface I don't care about such as herbicide resistance. I suspect that people would have a whole lot more buy in if the GMOs made the food healthier, tastier, have a longer shelf life (Bananas that don't turn brown in 3 seconds) etc.
But it seems the main beneficiaries of GMOs are big agribusiness and only big agribusiness. So when people reject GMOs they don't personally feel like they are losing much. One might argue that they are losing if the food costs a bit more but the reality is that the savings at the consumer end is actually quite minimal. (In theory a pest resistant crop might have fewer pesticides/herbicides which is a gain but hard for the average consumer to know as big agribusiness has fought all public disclosures of chemical levels in food.)
So looking at the science in most people's heads they might be thinking, "Hey this GMO only has one study in 100 that says it is bad. But what benefit do I have even taking that tiny risk? Whereas the agribusiness people won't eat this crap if it is toxic but they stand to make a fortune selling it."
The tests that show a link between certain GMO and cancers is "pure BS"?
Yes, actually, it was BS, if you're talking about this one. Which is why the study was retracted.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I agree. I also wouldn't equate opposition to GMO with opposition to science. It is precisely that kind of oversimplification that impedes helpful discourse on the topic.
If this is true, then why do people keep blanket banning "GMOs", rather than banning things like glyphosate?
Funny how you people in the US are stuck in a rut over this.
People of ALL political beliefs here in the UK don't want GMO crops. The result is that NO supermarket will sell food with any GMO content.
It is far more than Democrat vs Republican. It is the beliefs that people can decied what they want to eat. Given the choice and in this part of the world, the vasy majority give a big thumbs down to GMO food.
Only in the US could the debate be relegated to Democrats vs GOP. Sigh.
I am so glad I didn't take up the offer of staying in the US in the 1990's. IMHO, the USA is in danger of becoming irellevant in the late 2010's, early 2020's. You are building a wall and retreating behind it and giving two fingers to the rest of the world.
I like Big Island and on my two visits I found the people very welcoming. A big difference to the Stepford Wives community we lived in in New England. More power to the folks in HILO. right on folks.
According to this regulating GMO's is a federal responsibility. Will the ban and/or fines even hold up in court?
United States regulatory policy is governed by the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology This regulatory policy framework that was developed under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation.The policy as it developed had three tenets: "(1) U.S. policy would focus on the product of genetic modification (GM) techniques, not the process itself, (2) only regulation grounded in verifiable scientific risks would be tolerated, and (3) GM products are on a continuum with existing products and, therefore, existing statutes are sufficient to review the products."
I am pretty sure that a ban with no scientific review or investigation would fail tenet #2.
"Roundup Ready"
GMO seeds are a pretense to get farmers to buy MORE Roundup. It's not just a baseline level of chemical abuse that may have been present 30 or 40 years ago but an ESCALATION above and beyond what was done before.
GMO -> more chemicals sprayed on your food.
Plus GMO crops contaminate everything. They're like an untrained dog that shits in everyone's yard. Except patents allow for the dog's owner to take your house.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Wait until the Chinese start implementing cross-species modifications of the human genome to, say, extend our visual range into the far ultraviolet. Will the same Americans who preached open borders for all suddenly become advocates of keeping "frankenpeople" away from our precious shores?
The linked NYT article is very informative. According to it, that bogus study was the very study cited by the anti-GMO hippies in the Hawaii vote.
People of ALL political beliefs here in the UK don't want GMO crops
Are you saying that all people in the UK are pseudoscience believers? That's not very nice to say.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There is a different in dueling political pseudosciences, though: how many infrastructure projects, public or private, in any state, have been bullied to a halt by creationists? Can you name even one?
I think that analogous concept you might be looking for is DDT. It was originally a godsend -- it kills pests! The problem is that it also collapsed entire ecosystem (animals that ate pests, animals that ate those animals, etc.). The analogy works IMHO because it was developed by the Chemical industry (analagous to big aggro) and it provided relief from pests and the harm it caused was not immediately clear. NOTE: I am not suggesting that GMO is inherently bad. I merely mean to point out that new tech and new toys can have unintended consequences that are not immediately evident. Perhaps more importantly, the unintended consquences might not have any immediate relation to nourishment, allergies, digestibility, or human health.
In the GMO discussion, people love to bicker over bullshit like allergies, tumors, "noble" causes, etc. People do not talk as much about the insidious influence of profit motive over one's ethics. Or sensitive nonlinear dependencies between crops and adjacent ecosystems. What happens when the pests can't eat? Will our bird population leave or die out? I have heard some talk about how big aggro funds a lot of the GMO research which influences opinions. In my reckoning, this is even more direct and troublesome than big oil funding environmental studies.
Additionally, policymakers -- like those in Hawaii amply illustrated by this article -- have no knowledge of what is going on. Regulators (does a GMO seed need FDA approval to be planted? How do we insure crop isolation?) don't know anything either and can hardly make effective regulations. People also ignore that disaster scenarios, which might be EXTREMELY unlikely, must nevertheless be contemplated because when you have a disaster HELLO IT'S A FUCKING DISASTER DUMMIES.
I for one don't buy the argument that the world needs more food to support a growing population. There are more than enough people in the world. I for one would rather see fewer suburbs, shack villages, and shanty towns, and more wilderness in the world. While I question the wisdom of Hawaii's move, I treasure the idea that Hawaii might remain pure, pristine, and full of naive hippies.
Really? There is a lot of evidence that shows our GMOs are not good. Monsanto and Dupont based GMOs lack a lot of testing. It doesn't appear to be affecting our health now, but the long term effects could be bad. Plus, the PATENTS! It's not about science, it's about freedom of seed! Banning GMOs is an important first step to getting rid of life-patent laws. Seeds should be part of the public trust. If they become public again, I'd have no problem with GMOs that were open to people looking at them and doing real research on them; as well as people saving their seeds instead of being forced to buy terminal seed.
This idea that GMO stopped world starvation is a myth. Good cultivation can stop food shortages without the need of this GMO and with GMO, we have less diversity and more monoculture.
anti-GMO is not a conservative/republican issue. It's a global health and a progressive issue.
These are the same people who think that eating an "alkalizing" diet and drinking "alkalized water"
That's an overly broad and unfair characterization. Everyone seems to be ignoring that companies are not required to prove with sufficient rigor that GMO crops are adequately safe.
The FDA requires new pharmaceuticals to undergo years of testing. In contrast, GMO crops are assumed to be safe because they 'closely approximate' their originating crop. That's a foolish assumption.
Howdy howdy howdy
The problem is that if Hawaii remains that way, they will inevitably be invaded by people who need to turn the island chain in a factory farm to feed themselves, and no amount of hippie gentleness will stop that from happening. Ironically, whatever they think about GMOs won't help in a world that needs them so much that it doesn't matter if evil companies tarnish the name.
If growing healthy food is going to done more efficiently, it's going to have require higher crop yields while requiring less oil-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. Growing crops that have a temporary resistance to pests that quickly adapt through natural evolution isn't the way forward.
I'm pretty certain that the way of the future is going to be full factory farming, as in large scale growing of gunk in covered facilities. Then converting it into pretend meats and veggies. It's not all gross. We alreay can hydroponically grow greens that fit the definition of organic.
Even though there is a lot of land, much of the best land is being covered by housing developments as farmers find they can make enough money to retire just by selling to developers. And since we keep finding clever ways to produce more food, and therefore support more of us, it's inevitable as far as I can see.
This roundup ready crap is just a dead end. The future is processed algae.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
According to it, that bogus study was the very study cited by the anti-GMO hippies in the Hawaii vote.
That's so depressing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, you're thinking of USians or Japanese.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Besides making yourself a target for anti-religious bigots, what harm of any kind comes from professing and supporting creationism?
Meanwhile, anti-GMO pseudoscience supports malnutrition and some of the diseases and deaths caused by malnutrition. And anti-vaccination pseudoscience leads to children dying of preventable diseases.
Which one matters to you depends on what type of person you are.
That's an overly broad and unfair characterization. Everyone seems to be ignoring that companies are not required to prove with sufficient rigor that GMO crops are adequately safe.
The FDA requires new pharmaceuticals to undergo years of testing. In contrast, GMO crops are assumed to be safe because they 'closely approximate' their originating crop. That's a foolish assumption.
Everyone seems to be ignoring that nobody is required to prove with sufficient rigor that non GMO crops are adequately safe.
In fact to purposely allow non GMO crops that have been linked to death to continue to be grown and sold.
Because the creationists hurt ... who exactly? Someone who died 100 or 1000 years ago? There are children dying of malnutrition today.
The food "shortage" is as phony as a three dollar bill, just like the gas shortages in '73. Everybody is falling for Wall Street trickery.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Because the creationists hurt ... who exactly?
The creationists are actively trying to increase scientific illiteracy among American children - that's their entire reason for existence. In the short term, this doesn't really hurt anyone; in the long term, it would lead to the US being far less economically competitive, and more dependent on other nations for new scientific advances, especially medical technology. That has a very real impact on people's lives.
Plus, the PATENTS! It's not about science, it's about freedom of seed! Banning GMOs is an important first step to getting rid of life-patent laws. Seeds should be part of the public trust. If they become public again, I'd have no problem with GMOs that were open to people looking at them and doing real research on them
If you'd read the article, or paid any attention at all to the subject, you'd know that many GMOs are unencumbered by IP laws and/or were always intended to be given away. This includes both golden rice (which was specifically intended for the third world - developed nations don't really have endemic vitamin A deficiency) and virus-resistant papayas, which Hawaii currently grows. Banning them does nothing at all to advance the cause of open science.
Screwdrivers don't reproduce with hammers, permanently altering the property of a hammer.
An island is in a rather unique position regarding GMOs. Once they're let in, there's no turning back. Where's the harm in keeping a naturally isolated island free from them, at the very least until the long term science is real?
Unless, of course, you're simply looking for cheaper Kona coffee due to increased yields.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
When I was studying genetics in the late 80's/early 90's, we were taught that releasing GMOs into the environment was immoral. It had nothing to do with whether or not food products were safe, and everything to do with the impossibility of understanding what effect such new organisms would have on the incredibly complex wild environment. When I heard that Monsanto's GMO crops had become superweeds, causing major problems for farmers not growing Monsanto crops, it seemed that what I was taught was correct. From the article, it seems that most of Hawaii's concern is protecting their ecosystems.
Glyphosate can be used responsibly. But GMO crops don't promote responsible use. They encourage "over prescription," if you will, which accelerates pests' resistance.
Not to mention GMO crops are patentable and able to cross-breed with non-GMO crops, which places that non-GMO farmer at risk of patent litigation.
Howdy howdy howdy
I wonder if Slashdot's minders have been overrun by Cato Institute people? There is logic problem here. If the population is ever increasing, then tweaking food production from finite resources is bound to end in tears as the realities of logarithmic growth curves (for supply) kick in, along with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Corrected version: "The pressure to move to GMO foods, along with the phenomenon of global warming, underscores the need to rein in human population growth"
That's an interesting story/prediction about one possible future. I'm not sure why being "dependent on other nations" in an interconnected future world is a huge tragedy that must be avoided.
Is it worse than children dying of malnutrition?
Are you for reforming the FDA to make US medical technology research more competitive? Or is medical technology research competitiveness only good as a taking point versus religious folks?
I have zero problem with GMO foods as a general matter. "GMO" means as much to me as the word "chemicals"; it's devoid of substantive meaning.
That said, anti-GMO activists are not supporting malnutrition. We don't need GMOs to solve food shortages. We have more than enough food. It's a distribution problem, and where solving distribution is intractable existing agricultural methods can be used. Africa, for example, had more than enough food in the 1960s and 1970s; it wasn't until Western agribusiness put all the domestic farmers out of business that we ended up with famines in the 1980s, and that's because most poor nations are incapable of adapting to rich nations' sophisticated food management systems.
The reason why Western scientists push GMO crops to help solve international nutrition problems is because GMO is what Western scientists spend all their time on. GMOs aren't necessary, they're simply the tool most familiar to rich nations. It's like a guy who spends his day job writing Java code; guess what kind of language he'll prefer when doing open source projects at home. Java, most likely. Does that mean Java is the best language out there? Even if it is, that doesn't mean others are sufficient for any particular task.
No, the way of the future is a managed eugenics system and the gradual reduction of the human population to sustainable levels. This is already official state policy in China, and the Beijing Genomics Institute is very close to identifying key genetic markers of ideal traits, especially intelligence. You combine this with China rapidly establishing sovereignty over Africa, and the major cause of world overpopulation will be eliminated and hundreds of millions of acres of prime farmland will be freed up for productive use.
How can you possibly think the future is processed algae? Do you realize a billion people would rather burn your civilization to the ground?
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I have zero problem with GMO foods as a general matter. "GMO" means as much to me as the word "chemicals"; it's devoid of substantive meaning.
It means the same thing as "evil spirits" used to mean.
There are many people who don't think that this study was bogus. Read this and judge yourself on whether or not there are something suspecious in the rejection of this paper.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/12/gmo-retractions-denials-and-downright-lies/
apol
Haven't been to Honolulu or Hilo, I gather?
Much less the Pearl Harbor Naval Base, Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Air Base, and the other cities and military installations....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You are right. republicans are quite a way from being up to the level of dope addled hippies.
There is a lot of evidence that shows our GMOs are not good.
You're right, and one problem is that they're patented, which means that it's hard, if not impossible, to determine what effects it's having, because (to my knowledge) you cannot go purchase the, say, wheat itself. Personally, I've noticed a lot of people in America suddenly allergic to wheat, myself included. At age 33 I suddenly developed a wheat allergy.
As a side note, to those that are also suddenly allergic to wheat, this stuff works very well.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Actually large companies will soon gain control of almost all farms. By using large data crunching along with highly automated farm equipment individual plants can be fed and watered precisely as needed. That will give high tech farms such an economic advantage that farmers who choose more traditional farming methods will not be able to compete in selling their crops. The end result is that big business will own a percentage of the income from almost every farm in existence and in the long term as well. Imagine fertilizer, water and pesticides custom made for each plant daily and the yield that a farm could get per acre.
I have not, but I've seen hints or modern Hawaii on the one or two occasions I was forced to watch "Dog the Bounty Hunter." Personally, I find it off-putting. I meant the comment about hippies partly in jest. I know it's really a bunch of rich yuppies (kidding again haha).
There goes my plan to take over Hawaii with a race of mutated pineapple people! Well, played, Hawaii. Well played.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm not sure why being "dependent on other nations" in an interconnected future world is a huge tragedy that must be avoided.
No matter how interconnected the future world is, there will still be winners and losers. I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that the nations that embraced Enlightenment principles of secularism, rational inquiry, and the scientific method are immensely richer than the nations that remained mired in superstition. (Like most of the Islamic world, for instance, which is just about the only part of the world where you can find people similarly obsessed with spreading ignorance.) I can't predict the future, but I'm guessing that the US will be a much nicer place to live in 100 years if we continue to lead the world in scientific advances, versus if we're a nation of superstitious fools waiting for knowledge and technology to trickle down from, say, China.
Are you for reforming the FDA to make US medical technology research more competitive?
Of course, as long as there remain severe financial (and perhaps criminal) penalties for companies that knowingly push dangerous and/or unproven treatments. I use the exact same arguments with anti-GMO activists. I find them slightly less nauseating on an intellectual level only because they're campaigning primarily against consumer products rather than an entire body of knowledge. (The vandalism of the golden rice study in the Philipines is an exception.) The former is short-sighted but possibly correctable - scientists will continue to experiment as long as that remains legal (I say this as someone who has personally spilled transgenic organisms all over my lab bench), but if the scientists disappear altogether...
They hurt our education system, forcing teachers to teach mythology as science. They hurt the kids trying to learn, telling them some religious-based crap is equal to the scientific method. They hurt our progress as a nation, causing confusion amongst students who might have been STEM but instead now have doubts that the science is "real", when no other leading country muddies their science classes with completely unproven made-up ideas.
I'm hoping that they make it into an air-borne virus!
There are many people who don't think that this study was bogus.
There are also people who think the moon landing was faked.
I've looked into it, and whether there was something 'suspicious' or not, the paper was seriously deficient.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The are "many people" who believe in every kind of magical-thinking anti-science BS, from "EM waves bad" to "GMO bad" to "creation science". The fact that many people will believe any kind of stupid nonsense you can spout doesn't exactly give it credibility.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Anti-GMO activists have done things like destroy golden rice fields. Golden rice is currently just about the best bet for combatting vitamin A deficiency. It certainly seems like these rich yuppies prefer that brown people be malnourished to having GMO foods even tried.
Oh, and "fan death" - no discussion of "wacky shit people really believe" is complete without fan death.
Electric fans sold in South Korea are equipped with a "timer knob" switch that turns them off after a set number of minutes. This is perceived as a life-saving function, particularly essential for bedtime use.
I don't even?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I just thought of the other analogy: the Soviet Union, for all of its many unredeemable flaws, did manage to rack up some impressive scientific accomplishments. But not in biology or agriculture, because its leaders made a conscious choice to embrace Lysenko's pseudo-science and demonize genetics. The result was to set back progress by decades, because an entire generation was trained to be scientifically ignorant in that particular field. Russia still produces some excellent mathematicians and physicists, but it's never recovered in biology and medicine.
(Another contemporary example would be Hitler's opposition to much of physics research as being "too Jewish", and his own support for less rigorous science, but it was ultimately his anti-Semitism that caused the most damage to Germany's scientific community, rather than his embrace of pseudoscience.)
That's exactly what the anti-GMO idiots are doing. Don't turn a blind eye just because the idiots are on your side of the fence!
This is not winning a victory. It's winning a defeat.
That's exactly what the anti-GMO idiots are doing. Don't turn a blind eye just because the idiots are on your side of the fence!
They're not on my side of the fence. As a biologist, I find both revolting; I am only slightly more tolerant of the anti-GMO activists - the ones who aren't actively vandalizing scientific experiments, that is - because in my experience, they spend less time actually lying outright about the scientific evidence than creationists do, and at least some of their claims are actually testable hypotheses.
Any reputable cite for the claim of 10x worse health problems? The coverage I've seen says health problems are not worse near the GMO research and growing fields.
I think that analogous concept you might be looking for is DDT. It was originally a godsend -- it kills pests!
No, that would be a good analogy if we were just talking about Roundup Ready seeds. That is a more reasonable thing to ban if there are good (non-tin foil hat) reasons to ban it. But any problems with roundup ready seeds would be a problem with that particular use of genetic modification, not genetic medication in general. That seemed to me what the original post was saying about this rulings similarity to banning screw drivers. Banning all GMOs because of a few brands of GMOs would be like banning all pesticides because of DDT.
Almost all technologies that have been developed in the past 100 years or so to feed the world's expanding population have the chance of being harmful to our health in ways we don't know yet. There will be times when new advances will have unintended consequences, but we can't just be scared of every new technology that comes along. It is only because of these technologies that our lives are so good that we spend time on 1st world problems like worrying about the health problems of GMOs.
The benefits of these advances are staggering. In 1900 average people spent 43% of their budget on food, compared to 13% today. I am very glad that my food expenditures are only about $800 per month (I am above the 13% number) instead of probably $2500 if not for the green revolution. If you want to not eat GMOs, just eat organic food. Its price is more in line with what food costs would be when we discard some of the the last century's advances in tech.
I for one don't buy the argument that the world needs more food to support a growing population. There are more than enough people in the world.
Until a large portion of the world starts performing population control, our opinions about the harm of growing populations is not relevant to topics related to feeding more people. As long as we as a society let people have as many kids as they want, and do not wish to punish children for the sins of their parents, we need to find ways of feeding all of these people.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
The Indiana State legislature proposes bill that defines pi to be 3.2 and a procedure to square a circle with compass and straightedge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
To be honest, scientific analysis about things such as global warming has been shown to be strong armed/manipulated. It doesn't really matter what the people are told about it, deep down they know that messing with mother nature in that capacity just doesn't sit well with them. When it is observed that organic food is under attack by way of competition from it, along with GMO becoming more impossible to avoid, that settles it for them.
Unlike in the Soviet Union, we have individual choices here. We can choose to learn anything from creationism to evolution or anything else we wish -- unless the government controls the schools and censors the lessons. We should learn to avoid the Soviet Union's failures.
We also have the internet, where info about science and all other topics is abundant. The science topics don't get crowded out by the non-science topics -- there's enough space for all ideas.
Until a large portion of the world starts performing population control, our opinions about the harm of growing populations is not relevant to topics related to feeding more people. As long as we as a society let people have as many kids as they want, and do not wish to punish children for the sins of their parents, we need to find ways of feeding all of these people.
How do you figure that concern over population growth is not relevant to feeding people? I smell in this statement some kind of ethical concept which needs to be more clearly elucidated. I'm willing to accept that it's a Machiavellian notion, but if you don't feed people, they find it harder to reproduce. And, as long as we're on the topic of feeding everyone with GMO, why not engineer the GMO to reduce fertility rates? I'm sure it's possible. We just need to find some kind of GMO that contributes an anaphrodisiac to Golden Rice. As long as we are taking charge of our destiny with genetic tools, why not solve all the problems we can?
Do you think these impure thoughts and confusing messages should be censored from our textbooks and banned from our schools? How should we dispose of these books that are so harmful?
What, are you saying the study was good, or are you saying people are naive?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Unlike in the Soviet Union, we have individual choices here. We can choose to learn anything from creationism to evolution or anything else we wish -- unless the government controls the schools and censors the lessons. We should learn to avoid the Soviet Union's failures.
Teaching pseudoscience and political ideology in biology classes is exactly how the Soviet Union fucked up. We can choose to pursue intellectual inquiries that expand our knowledge of natural processes and inform our efforts to control our environment and treat our illnesses, or we can ignore these subjects in favor of religious doctrine. Which do you think will do more to improve our quality of life? Should we also be encouraging aspiring doctors to go into faith healing instead of modern Western medicine? Obviously in America people are free to do exactly this, just as they are free to lobby against GMOs, or vaccines, or general relativity. I can't stop them, nor would I if I had the power, but I won't stop calling them out as anti-progress misanthropes either.
The issue is that GMO crops can diverge a great deal further in a signle generation. Imagine corn with a peanut protean in it.
Your sudden wheat allergy is probably a nocebo effect....
Until a large portion of the world starts performing population control, our opinions about the harm of growing populations is not relevant to topics related to feeding more people. As long as we as a society let people have as many kids as they want, and do not wish to punish children for the sins of their parents, we need to find ways of feeding all of these people.
How do you figure that concern over population growth is not relevant to feeding people? I smell in this statement some kind of ethical concept which needs to be more clearly elucidated. I'm willing to accept that it's a Machiavellian notion, but if you don't feed people, they find it harder to reproduce.
Like I said, once society is ready to start performing population control on a global scale, then we no longer have to worry about feeding growing population. I did not talk about the morality of population control, just that as long as we both let people have the freedom to reproduce and do not condone letting people starve, it is irrelevant what our opinions on growing population are when talking about finding ways of feeding them.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
If all GMO crops were as carefully studied and as open as the Rainbow papaya before introduction, a lot less people would object.
People do not trust the studies anymore, being aware the media is used, publicized studies smell of political and profit based motivation behind them. Yes, people behind GMO are naive, with consideration to man kinds unique and almost focused ability to screw things up, usually due to cut corners and are profit motivated, playing in the arena of the basis of life is quite naive...
Rather than choose which is better for everyone, I would let them choose for themselves. I'm against banning GMOs and against banning creationism. I don't support government schools because the government shouldn't be telling anyone what to think. The country wouldn't suffer if the phrase "some people don't believe in evolution, choosing instead to believe God created all creatures in their current form" were uttered in a science class, but the country wouldn't be helped either. The government should neither censor creationism nor teach it, neither promote it nor compartmentalize it.
Evolution vs. creationism is a topic rarely discussed among religious people. Among anti-religious bigots it is discussed all the time, because bigots tend to be obsessed with differences in beliefs or characteristics. The different people are always bad, always dangerous and threatening to them. But these threats are almost never actualized. They're a "what if" scenario, or a callback to something that happened in a different place or time. Hence the original question: "the creationists hurt ... who exactly?" Realistically, they don't. People should choose reason and fairness over bigotry.
Freedom and reason will improve our quality of life, because free people want better lives and reason allows them to make better choices. Government control and bigotry degrade our quality of life.
I wish you were right. As far as I know, the nocebo effect can only take place in one that knowingly takes the "allergen".
However, in my case, I had stomach problems for about 2 years before a suspect diagnosis. I went to the doctor 4 or 5 times for this stomach discomfort, and they did all sorts of tests. Finally they found that I was allergic to wheat, by way of a blood test. Once I started a non-wheat diet, the symptoms went away. But to hell with that diet. Wheat is in so many things that I love to eat, and to go gluten-free, which is what you have to do, is costly. That stuff in the link in my last post helps tremendously. It could be argued that it's a placebo effect that enables me to get benefit from it, but I highly doubt it.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Ah, I see, so what you are saying is, since you don't understand the science, you would rather not trust? That's mainly ignorance, not naivete.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, we just don't like the thought of Monsanto controlling our food supply.
That's different than being opposed to GMO. It's not clear you understand that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Simple logic unless you know how to breed corn with a salmon in a single generation without GMO techniques.
Nope, the same people opposing every other GE crops also oppose the Rainbow papaya. The anti-GE people don't care that the papayas were developed by the university.
Ok, then explain the thugs who tried to destroy the GE wheat trial at Rothamsted, or the ones who did destroy the GE potatoes at the University of Leeds.
The anti-Monsanto is just a convenient attempt to justify anti-science bullshit (and even that card is factually weak). That's why there's opposition to Golden Rice, the Rainbow papaya, The Arctic apple, and every other non-Monsanto GMO. If it was just about Monsanto, that wouldn't happen, but it does.
There is already a ban on genetically engineered taro in Hawai'i. The justification was that it was religiously offensive to (some) Native Hawaiians (who had been used as tools by anti-GE groups, IMO). How that one managed to become law is baffling, but considering that region is a good enough reason to pass an anti-GE law in Hawai'i, this law passing was not much surprise. Take note, by the way, that the taro research was being done by the University of Hawai'i, also known as not Monsanto. That's right, university research is being stiffed over religion. How is there no outrage over this?
This new law may be overturned however. The farmers do not like it, at least, the ones who aren't peddling overpriced organic food anyway...conveniently, those guys seem okay with legislating away the competition. It is not fair, hurts local agriculture on the Big Island (read the bill,expanding a farm if you use biotechnology comes with a $1000 a day fine, which will not help food security on the island). This whole thing is just wrong. We should be encouraging agriculture, and encouraging technology, not hurting something good and ignoring the real issues that legitimately are cause for concern, like land costs.
At least one less is opposed, I imagine more as well.
More importantly, it was enough to convince Japan to accept the papayas even though it rejects many other GM crops.
Because that's nothing more than stupid trolling, that's why. We don't need to study if people can eat corn or tomatoes, since people have been eating corn and tomatoes for thousands of years. People have not spent thousands of ears eating their corn and tomatoes with fish DNA grafted onto it. You're also ignoring the fact that we have decades of research into diets from around the world. We don't have that for pork meat with DNA from a cactus or whatever else it is you want us to eat.
If you were the sort of stupid troll that ran around accusing hippies of wanting brown people to die of malaria because of DDT bans, maybe.
The initial ball-rollers were the taro farmers, and for entirely different (and IMO legitimate) reasons. There are a lot of small independent family (actually a family, not just a big conglomerate owned by a family) taro farmers. With taro (it's like a big potato), much of the planting is done by cutting of the top of the corm (the potato part) and replanting it. They saw what Monsanto was doing with not allowing corn farmers to save seed, and were concerned that if the taro market went to GMO the same thing would happen with taro, where farmers would be entirely dependent on Monsanto and pretty much unable to resist or remain independent.
That whole 'save the kalo' thing was driven a lot by religion and ignorance. There was a lot of vitriol because of patented taro varieties that the UH developed. However, they patented those varieties for a damned good reason: when they developed the macadamia varieties that are now used worldwide, they did not patent them, and as a result, the trees found themselves right away in South Africa and Australia where labor costs are cheaper, then sold back into the US, thus hurting the Hawaiian industry. The researchers who worked with the taro did not want that to happen again. There were also people getting pissy about new varieties making bad poi, which is a dumb thing to get angry about because that is not the taro breeder's fault that farmers try new taro huli. Yeah, some were mad about the patents, but no one is forcing anyone to use patented huli!
The GMO thing was absolutely absurd, especially considering that the University of Hawai'i allows replanting of transgenic papaya. I have a strong suspicion that the anti-GE groups had a strong hand to play in the GMO taro fiasco, and furthermore, not all taro growers supported that ban. The fact is, disease wiped out taro in other islands, like Samoa. The southern leaf blight and taro blight that the GE taro were engineered to be resistant to were not as bad as what Samoa had, but if the Alomae-Bobone Virus Complex comes to Hawai'i kiss your poi goodbye. And there was even one kupuna who said they would rather the taro die out than see it be GMO. Such concern for ol' Haloa! And of course there were a lot of ignorant moke who just wanted to pound their chests at the haoles, that hullabaloo was part of it too.
I work in plant science, and I sure would. The anti-GMO movement is to agriculture and plant science what the anti-vaxxers are to medicine and immunology, climate change denialists are to climate science, and creationists are to evolutionary biology and biology in general. The vast majority of their arguments, even the ones that initially sound like they make sense (for example, the 'superweed' thing, or non-scientific issues like labeling), range from very weak and only coherent provided you hold a low level of botanical/agricultural knowledge to downright false (ex. the often quoted Séralini study). I so often hear otherwise rational people repeat anti-GE arguments because the opposition continues to adapt without actually changing their stance, sort of like how the anti-vaxxers started out focusing on thimerosal, then too-many-too-soon, ect. First opposition to GMOs is about health, then the environment, then biodiversity, then corporations, then labeling, then back to health every time you show how the concern is either misplaced or outright false. This is an movement that has so much misinformation, ignorance, and ideology mixed up into it, and ti is wrong in many ways.
And I'm not saying there is no nuance on the topic, I'm not, there is, there are legitimate issues here, but to say that gives the anti-GE movement any credibility is like taking the very real controversy over the evolutionary history of the gnetophytes as evidence that creationism has some merit.
I have heard some talk about how big aggro funds a lot of the GMO research which influences opinions.
Go to your local university. The vast majority of scientists in relevant areas support the use of GE. You should not find it surprising when the people who cry Monsanto conspiracy at every inconvenient fact also accuse research of being part of the conspiracy.
I for one don't buy the argument that the world needs more food to support a growing population.
Well, you're wrong. The population is not only growing, but it is also demanding more than just rice, corn, and wheat. Also, there is less land, encroaching urbanization, more demand for water, evolving pests and diseases, and climate change. We need all the technology we can to face that.
While I question the wisdom of Hawaii's move, I treasure the idea that Hawaii might remain pure, pristine, and full of naive hippies.
I'd like two of those three.
Even better, several of the University of Hawai'i scientists who were there got less between the group of them than Jeffrey Smith, who is kind of like the Jenny McCarthy of genetic engineering. That's right, a guy whose only claim to fame is peddling nonsensical books about genetic engineering was given more time than the local, reputable, independent university scientists. Science was not welcome at the testimonies for the bill.
I understand your problems with gluten (which I also have), however it is important to understand that the product you are recommending really has very little of its claimed ingredients. The 6X stuff is 1 part in a million, the 12X is 1 part in a trillion. If you take 1 gram of the liquid, you are only getting 1 microgram each of the 6X ingredients and one millionth of a microgram of the 12X ingredients. For almost all substances, these amounts are unlikely to have any substantial physiological effects, especially ones related to something as large as the gut. For something to be labled as gluten-free, it must have less that 20 parts per million and you will typically eat much more than a gram of something. The claim of homeopathy is that the carrier (water or sugar) contains "memory" of the original ingredient which is supposedly as powerful as the ingredient itself.
A big difference to the Stepford Wives community we lived in in New England. More power to the folks in HILO. right on folks.
I very much doubt that, especially if you believe everything you just said above.
Conventional farming cannot last long term. Period. The green revolution is the whole reason most of us aren't starving right now, and being against GMO's is attempting to roll agriculture back to before the green revolution. That means your most basic needs become a LOT more expensive, and your economy has to now devote more of its resources towards food production instead of technology advancement.
Sure, eat what you want, but don't come running to the US for aid packages when famine hits, because you've been warned about that pandora's box you're opening up. The same warnings were given to the anti-vaccine movement, and they're just now starting to see the error of their ways (The data is in: Non-vaccined kids have not had reduced autism rates, however they do have increased fatalities caused by what are otherwise third world problems while living in a first world country.)
The science doesn't support any of the claims of the anti-GMO or anti-vaccine movements.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Hell, who am I kidding, they'll come running to us anyways, and we'll give them aid packages anyways. They always do, and we always do.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
How would creationists be more dangerous? If anti-GMO people had their way, we'd effectively roll back the green revolution, and famine would return to India, China, and various parts of Eastern Europe. Africa's famine would get much worse.
Creationists at the worst might get a public school textbook changed in Texas. People might get dumber, but nobody will die.
I'd say climate change deniers won't hurt either. We've already seen periods much warmer than the current one, and the result has always been increased biodiversity and "greener" terrain (literally, much more prosperous plantlife.) These periods also are accompanied by CO2 levels about 18 times what we have right now. We are actually heading for another one of these in a few million years, regardless of whether or not mankind exists (search google for "pangea ultima", which current earth sciences say is inevitable.) Whether it happens by us, or it happens naturally, I'm not sure what difference it makes in the end.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Probably because in the end, these foods are chemically indistinguishable from non-GMO plants.
Keep in mind that every time you breed a plant, you have thousands of genes that mutate in unknown ways; we have no idea what kind of change might take place in that plant, and it's impractical to ever know. But, we assume they're safe anyways - which isn't a bad idea, it's worked for thousands of years after all.
Yet in the case of GMO, we have one very small and very controlled deliberate mutation that makes them resistant to glyphosate, we know precisely what it does, akin to other plants that are naturally resistant...and HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE, THIS CAN'T BE SAFE TO EAT!
Really, in light of the second paragraph, is the third at all rational? Think about it for a minute.
Contrast to that of pharmaceuticals where we're looking at a chemical structure that flat out hasn't ever been put inside of a human body before. In the case of a GMO plant, what you are consuming from the plant might have a different protein pattern, but by the time they reach your plate they aren't distinguishable from non-GMO plants. This is mainly because there are so many variations from plant to plant that without doing a DNA analysis you aren't going to tell one minor strain from another very easily.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Just for added giggles to debunk the organic movement, have a look at this from the American Cancer Society:
Are foods labeled "organic" more effective in lowering cancer risk?
The term organic is popularly used to designate plant foods grown without pesticides and genetic modifications. At this time, no research exists to demonstrate whether such foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk than are similar foods produced by other farming methods.
Do pesticides in foods cause cancer?
Pesticides and herbicides can be toxic when used improperly in industrial, agricultural, or other occupational settings. Although vegetables and fruits sometimes contain low levels of these chemicals, overwhelming scientific evidence supports the overall health benefits and cancer-protective effects of eating vegetables and fruits. At present there is no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer, but fruits and vegetables should be washed thoroughly before eating.
http://www.cancer.org/healthy/eathealthygetactive/acsguidelinesonnutritionphysicalactivityforcancerprevention/acs-guidelines-on-nutrition-and-physical-activity-for-cancer-prevention-diet-cancer-questions
If you just object to the idea of pesticides, then organic isn't your solution either, as virtually ALL organic farmers who sell their crops commercially use pesticides. Rather instead of synthetic pesticides, they use much larger quantities of "natural" (and I use that term loosely) pesticides.
The anti-GMO movement is every bit as destructive as the anti-vaccine movement, perhaps more so. They basically want to take the green revolution, which has ended famine in SOO many countries, and throw it away just because it makes them feel better about themselves. Sure, they might have the money to blow on organic food that costs a lot more and has no scientifically proven benefits, but poor people do not.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
We don't need GMOs to solve food shortages like we don't need airlines to cross the ocean. It would be ridiculous to handicap ourselves by ignoring our best tool in this situation. As for GMOs being the most familiar solution to western scientists, I don't think that's even a problem. It's like a guy who codes java all day at work. He may know that he's using a deficient language that's only fit for non-technical managers, but he's going to make a much bigger contribution using java than anything else, given his expertise. We may not need GMOs to solve food shortages, but we should definitely be using GMOs to try and solve food shortages.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the agribusiness and famines, but you're going to have to explain that one again. The only way we could put african farmers out of business is by selling cheap crops in Africa. Cheap crops, yet famine?
I'm not following you completely, but I've had about 5 hours of sleep in the last 3 days. All I know is that stuff has in it, some grain, and some wheat, as well as some stuff that relaxes the allergic reaction. The theory is that by introducing very small amounts of the "problem" (grain or wheat) as well as a small amount of the "relaxant", it could train your immune system to calm the hell down during times when you eat grain or wheat in normal doses. I don't think it's working that way for me, so I'm simply using it for it's "relaxant" effects. You just take 15 drops every 3 or 4 hours, and eat what you wish. I admit that it's not the best plan, perhaps cutting out wheat would be (I think wheat in it's own right isn't good to eat a lot of) ultimately a better idea. But cutting out wheat leaves you with a limited menu, that's pretty pricey.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
"They saw what Monsanto was doing with not allowing corn farmers to save seed, and were concerned that if the taro market went to GMO the same thing would happen with taro, where farmers would be entirely dependent on Monsanto and pretty much unable to resist or remain independent."
I'm with them on this point. And that is what should be highlighted, companies like Monsanto are evil.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
nitpick : there has not been any study showing GMO currently cultivated to be unhealthy, but there has been 1) GMO made with nut allergene (thankfully stoppedby the firm before commercialisation) 2) evidence of resistance gene spreading in the wild which brings all sort of complication (but again is thankfully not an health problem, more like a crop versus pest growing problem).
But basically you are righ and GMO hater are nutter (pun intended).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Maybe you should ask Europe about that
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Sadly, I am without mod points...would have had a +1 Insightful from me for sure, AC or not.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Science, or the understanding of it is not relevant, it is the people that present it that can be subject to manipulating results due to political or monetary interests.
Bit of a tangent, but I saw an interesting Nova episode which included a tour of a Russian missile base. The commander bragged about using biorhythms to predict when soldiers would be at their best performance so that they could staff the silos accordingly and how this was much more advanced than what they did in the west. The operational manual was out of the old Soviet days.
That's the problem with dictatorships - they're really efficient about what they do, so when they do good stuff it often turns out rather good, and when for whatever reason the guy in charge is a bit crazy, well, they're really good on follow-through.
Watch "Seeds of Death" and let me know when you come to the same conclusion as thousand of silenced researchers and scientists. We're not Anti-Science, we're anti-tobacco science......
End of Line.
It's shills like you that continue to suppress the information that GMO's are a pandoras' box. There is so much information out here that Monsanto and their ilk you'd rather not know. Anti-GMO proponents are not anti-science (sounds like a fox news insult) they are on the side of labeling so we, the people can choose. The pro gmo faction knows if we have a choice, their products will no longer sell, and there are a multitude of reasons for this, but until you avail yourself of the documented effects of gmo's you'll remain ignorant of their dangers. Side with the Corps that told us that Agent Orange is safe and get back to me.
End of Line.
It was retracted because of threats, corruption and one of their team become co-opted. Read some more and find out what actually happened. Never mind that ANY researcher trying to get funds to research GMO's for possible negative effects is asking for his career to end. Monsanto doesn't play fair when profits loom in the balance and they couldn't give two shits about our health.
End of Line.
The film Seeds of death, watch it and then fact check it....you'll have nightmares.
End of Line.
Everyone seems to be ignoring that companies are not required to prove with sufficient rigor that GMO crops are adequately safe.
People with non-scientific backgrounds, like you, think the tests are not sufficient. Scientists who understand the issues think the tests are sufficient.
Mainly people like you aren't thinking rationally, you're thinking out of fear.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Science, or the understanding of it is not relevant,
I see, so you are basing this all on 'what you feel,' or 'what seems right.' That's a real winner.
Back in the real world, people look at things like 'evidence' and 'experiments.' Stop being so braindead.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It was retracted because of threats, corruption and one of their team become co-opted.
It was a poorly done experiment.
Read some more and find out what actually happened.
Stop reading the propaganda and look at the actual experiment. Because in science, experiments and data are all that matter.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Honestly, you sound like an ignoramus. I doubt you'd know a double-blind test if it hit you in the face. Did you skip fourth grade science or something? I think you must be drooling on your keyboard right now. Lack proper drool control. Remember, you can swallow, it's helpful.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
While it does sound silly (and the two proposed causes have glaring logical flaws), I wonder if this isn't an urban myth that sprang from actual concerns. Kind of like leaving a pot of boiling water unattended on a stove...presumably if the fan motor was sufficiently shitty it could start a fire? And obviously the electricity is kind of going to waste as well.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Call it Murphy's law; when the GMO company/ies inevitably cut corners while playing with living things, eventually something will get fucked up. And then when somebody finally realizes the result is unhealthy, they'll suppress the findings.
Considering that we keep finding studies that are full of shit, it's unreasonable for you to attack people who doubt studies.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Call it Murphy's law; when the GMO company/ies inevitably cut corners while playing with living things, eventually something will get fucked up. And then when somebody finally realizes the result is unhealthy, they'll suppress the findings.
Oh no, what should we do?? If only we had a government agency who regulated and made sure these things were safe. We could call it the 'USDA.'
Nah, that's insanity. Continue on with your fearmongering.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Calling anti-gmo activists ant-science is a monsanto trick and it's getting annoying. Watch Seeds of Death and learn something about how Business works...
End of Line.
And nobody could possibly grease the USDA. Especially not a multihojillion-dollar corporation.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
They probably could, but you're a superstitious freak, because you don't understand science.
Get an understanding of science, then we'll talk. Otherwise I'm just wasting my time and you're being an idiot.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This has absolutely nothing to do with science; this is about humans acting for human reasons (money) instead of science!
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You are unable to evaluate the quality of the science, because you don't understand it. Because you don't understand it, you fear it.
It has to do with you, and fear, and the unknown. You are a loser.
Fix that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is the same argument as the open source code base, which was what I was trying to get at, somewhat. Sure you *could* theoretically audit all the code on your computer, but nobody has the time for that, and very few have the domain knowledge. I "could" read up on all the studies, but...
Do *you* understand all the nuances of the science? Really?
And stop insulting me. That isn't helping anything.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You can and it will be if you do it right. Should is another question entirely.
Citations please? It there is so much information readily available, please provide some citations. Burden of proof is on you at this point, since you're the one making claims. And I want actual legitimate scientific papers published in reputable journals, not anecdotes from moms with Internet connections or stories related third-hand from some friend's cousin's barber who heard it from this one guy down the block.
Anti-GMO proponents are not anti-science (sounds like a fox news insult) they are on the side of labeling so we, the people can choose
To be clear, I strongly support the labeling of GMO as such; people have a right to decide whether or not they want to eat GM-foodstuffs. I am, however, strongly against claims made based on emotion and questionable sources. Having read the article (and several more articles and books on the subject of GMO), many GMO opponents appear to be anti-science, changing the reason for the ban whenever someone presents them with a legitimate counter-arguement.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Don't waste your time. As G.K. Chesterton observed, "If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do." A lack of solid evidence is evidence that the Big Agriculture (TM) has bribed the authorities to supress it.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Above posters have covered how creationists are more dangerous than all that, and the "climate change won't be bad" has been extensively debated to death elsewhere.
Anti-GMO people are not going to "have their way" around the world. People in india are not going to starve to appease some Hawaian hippies.
'I' do not have a 'feeling' or an 'opinion' on GMO because I have not seen 'any' uncorruptible scientific presentations or documentation capable of being recreated by third party or by myself on the matter based upon coherently perceived understanding and observation of corruption in both science and media for obvious reasons of profits. China and Africa have both refused delivery of GMO products, and I'd have to say they probably won't be the only ones in the future. Would you jump off a bridge for a dollar?
If they already eat the fish, why should it matter if the fish DNA is in a plant instead??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
'I' do not have a 'feeling' or an 'opinion' on GMO because I have not seen 'any' uncorruptible scientific presentations or documentation capable of being recreated by third party or by myself on the matter
Then you're arguing out of ignorance.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm willing to continue as long as it gives me amusement.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is the same argument as the open source code base, which was what I was trying to get at, somewhat. Sure you *could* theoretically audit all the code on your computer, but nobody has the time for that, and very few have the domain knowledge. I "could" read up on all the studies, but...
Yes, yes, and for some reason, though you won't look at it for yourself, you choose to not believe the scientists. Brilliant, that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
These are the same people who think that eating an "alkalizing" diet and drinking "alkalized water"
That's an overly broad and unfair characterization. Everyone seems to be ignoring that companies are not required to prove with sufficient rigor that GMO crops are adequately safe.
The FDA requires new pharmaceuticals to undergo years of testing. In contrast, GMO crops are assumed to be safe because they 'closely approximate' their originating crop. That's a foolish assumption.
Pharmaceuticals are designed to have a significant biological effect on the body, side effects are almost impossible to avoid. GMO crops are designed to indistinguishable to the human body. Making a safe GMO crop is a far easier task than making a safe pharmaceutical (and I've yet to hear real evidence of any GMO related health issues in humans).
I stole this Sig
What part of "we already have extensive research on diets" did you not understand? There's data on low fat, vegitarian, seefood diets, etc etc etc, going back decades. That is not the case for GMO products.
Take your willful stupidity and pound sand, troll.
these foods are chemically indistinguishable from non-GMO plants.
Except they produce proteins which provide resistance to glyphosate, right? That would imply they are distinguishable, right? If they weren't, how would Monsanto be able to sue farmers for planting GM crops without their permission (which they do).
Anyway I agree it's generally okay to assume 'traditionally' breeded plants are safe. Eons of natural selection seems to have worked well.
What I don't agree with is the implicit trust given to the methods of introducing GM genes. A gene gun literally shotgun blasts cell DNA with the new genes stuck to metal particles hoping some sticks in the right spots; progeny are selected which express the desired trait but it can't be known if other areas of the DNA were adversely affected. Another method hijacks a soil bacterium to produce a new gene which is transferred to the target host. Relatively controlled but in an absolute sense pretty messy.
In light of the second paragraph, it should be noted the third paragraph ignores how that deliberate mutation would never happen without human intervention.
The safety aspects of GMO crops are still up for debate (obviously!). I advocate caution is all. That and transparency. If they're so freakin' safe, why does Monsanto spend sooo much cash to prevent labeling?
A lot of (probably safe to say most) pharmaceuticals are derived from plants/animals/mold/etc or based on modified existing substances. The completely novel compound is the minority. I think the analogy stands.
But aside from the potential for physical harm, there's demonstrated economic harm in the form of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops were contaminated and ecological harm by the dilution of heritage strains and acceleration of pesticide resistance. Personally, I think these are more important concerns because they are more concrete but for some reason people get upset when you attempt to steer the debate that direction.
Howdy howdy howdy
Making a safe GMO crop is a far easier task than making a safe pharmaceutical
I think it's fair to say [Citation needed]
I've yet to hear real evidence of any GMO related health issues in humans
yet
Howdy howdy howdy
You mean scientists like Árpád Pusztai?
Árpád Pusztai (8 September 1930) is a Hungarian-born biochemist and nutritionist who spent 36 years at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He is a world expert on plant lectins, authoring 270 papers and three books on the subject.
In 1998, Árpád Pusztai publicly announced that the results of his research showed feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats had negative effects on their stomach lining and immune system. This led to scientific criticism and Pusztai being suspended and his annual contract was not renewed. The resulting controversy became known as the Pusztai affair.
I'm not fearful; that's silly. I've been educating myself and based on my understanding of the current GM technology, including a familiarity with the methods by which GMO crops are evaluated for safety, I've decided they are not sufficiently rigorous to convince me of the crops' safety.
FWIW, I'm a civil engineer. I currently work in the field of air quality. Yes, I do science! (Everyday!)
Howdy howdy howdy
Making a safe GMO crop is a far easier task than making a safe pharmaceutical
I think it's fair to say [Citation needed]
No it isn't, it's fairly evident from the argument I posted, if you have to hunt down citations for every obvious fact you want to write than you'll never have time to communicate anything. Particularly when that fact is something as oddly formed as the relative complication rates of pharmaceuticals vs GMO's (am I supposed to track down a paper or something?)
I've yet to hear real evidence of any GMO related health issues in humans
yet
Considering that almost all pharmaceutical products have side effects of some kind then GMO's have already proven far safer to human health.
I'd actually hold up that 'yet' as evidence that the difference is so self evident that a citation is unnecessary.
I stole this Sig
ou mean scientists like Árpád Pusztai
No, I mean scientists that know how to design a decent experiment. See this for example (p 16): "he main conclu- sion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."
including a familiarity with the methods by which GMO crops are evaluated for safety, I've decided they are not sufficiently rigorous to convince me of the crops' safety.
ok, this could be interesting. Are you worried that starch in GMO corn is different than starch in non-GMO corn? What exactly is your problem with the current methods?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You didn't actually provide an argument. You made a broad observation (yes, drugs should elicit an effect) followed by a questionable assertion (aren't GMO crops supposedly distinguishably healthier?), then an unfounded claim (far easier task...). Citing 'self-evidence' isn't very convincing. [I mean would you have difficulty tracking down supportive papers? ;) ]
'yet' was an allusion to potential but not-immediately-apparent, chronic or cumulative effects. I would bring up DDT/Agent Orange/... but those are very extreme examples and most definitely would/will feed trolls. More likely, if detrimental effects do appear, they won't be lethal, just suboptimal. Meanwhile, waiting won't do me any harm.
What we currently have is an absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.
Howdy howdy howdy
I didn't say I refused to believe it; I'm just skeptical of all studies these days, especially ones done by the same corporation that markets the thing being tested.
Considering that we keep finding studies that are full of shit, it's unreasonable for you to attack people who doubt studies.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Sure -- but it's still going to express in the range of that gene. If it's a gene for making an amino acid, it's not suddenly going to start making cyanide.
You know all those weird colors you can now get in commercial petunias? came from a corn gene. But it doesn't suddenly turn them into mandrakes.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii and ban genetically engineered food and crops. We are living in a wake of negligence from previous harmful substances that were once deemed safe for human health and the environment. Given the unattended consequences of genetically engineered foods and crops, and the global commitment to the precautionary principle in the Rio Declaration, and in the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992, it becomes imperative to institute a global ban on genetically engineered foods and crops At a Conference in 1998, in St Louis, scientists stated that using the term Genetically modified would be confusing because there has been modification over the years through breeding, but breeding is completely distinct from Genetic engineering/transgenic processes. The scientists advised everyone to use the terms genetically engineered or transgenic food and crops. Those opposed to Genetically engineered food and crops do pay attention to science For example, Dr. Thierry Vrain a genetic engineer who worked for 30 years for Agriculture Canada pointed out the following: While on the one hand, the biotech companies argued initially that they should get a patent because their transgenic products were unique; on the other hand, subsequently they proceeded to argue that there was no need to test these products derived from the transgenic process because they were substantially equivalent. He has left the department and is speaking out against genetically engineered food and crops , and he now supports a ban. The profusion of genetically engineered food and crops resulted from institutional collusion. The institutional Collusion, in relation to genetically engineered food and crops, among corporations, governments, universities and regulatory agencies has been endemic; For the sake of food safety and food security for present and future generations: (i) this collusion must end; (ii) the precautionary principle must be invoked, (iii) genetically engineered food and crops, banned; (iv) Genetically engineered products from the shelves, dumped; (v) the charters of Monsanto et al, revoked; and (vi) charges of gross/criminal negligence against these corporations, levied. The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii; There has been a petition, calling for a global ban, launched. http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-un-general-assembly-institute-a-global-ban-on-genetically-engineered-food-and-crops
Considering that we keep finding studies that are full of shit, it's unreasonable for you to attack people who doubt studies.
There's widespread scientific concurrence that GMOs are safe. I'm mocking you specifically because you disagree with the widespread scientific agreement, because.....no good reason. You deserve to be mocked for that stupidity.
So, do you also think that vaccines cause autism? There have been studies that show a link.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So, do you also think that vaccines cause autism? There have been studies that show a link.
A good case in point of crap studies being published.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Right, so how do you justify that you disagree with broad scientific consensus on GMO foods?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Except they produce proteins which provide resistance to glyphosate, right? That would imply they are distinguishable, right? If they weren't, how would Monsanto be able to sue farmers for planting GM crops without their permission (which they do).
Let me be a little more precise: There are only 100,000 or so different proteins in nature; what we're changing is how they are arranged. You can identify a GMO plant with a DNA test, but once it reaches your plate, and further once it reaches your blood stream (which all food you eat eventually does) it's for all intents and purposes the same food.
This is why none of those tests linking GMO to any sort of health problems have ever lived up to scrutiny. Ever. Not a single one. They were all based on junk science.
A gene gun literally shotgun blasts cell DNA with the new genes stuck to metal particles hoping some sticks in the right spots; progeny are selected which express the desired trait but it can't be known if other areas of the DNA were adversely affected.
Yes it can, and further those scary sounding metal particles don't end up in the new plant.
The safety aspects of GMO crops are still up for debate (obviously!). I advocate caution is all. That and transparency. If they're so freakin' safe, why does Monsanto spend sooo much cash to prevent labeling?
I don't know whether or not they do that, but if they do I know why and I don't blame them. It's the same reason cell phone companies don't want labeling of radiation output of phones. It's a useless figure that will not impact public health in any way, yet it will inevitably be used as a bargaining tool by some to try to make some "low radiation phones" be preferable for no good reason at all, and therefore phones will needlessly cost more money to make in order to make them "safer". That inevitably means lower sales, and nothing was gained by anybody, except some smug politician now feels even more smug.
Further, I myself wholly reject the idea of GMO labeling, but not for this reason. There's already limited space available on food labels to the point that very vital information to my own personal health is omitted already, namely the potassium and phosphorus content of foods, which being on a renal diet I have to watch carefully. I don't expect the government to require those on the label (us kidney failure people are a small minority, and I don't expect the masses to bend to us unlike certain other minorities) but needs for my diet far outweigh a label as useless as one indicating whether or not the food has GMO in it, and the government if anything should take that into consideration, as well as vitamin k (for people with cirrhosis) and a whole slew of other things that are already omitted from labels due to space concerns long long LONG before we take into consideration whether some hippie doesn't "feel good" about his food.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
You're not listening. I've said that I don't necessarily believe they're harmful, but I acknowledge the strong chance that they're abusing the bureaucracy for their own profit by concealing relevant data. If GMOs make better foodstuffs, are more viable as crops, and are the same price or cheaper (to the consumer!), then fine. You seem to be refusing to admit that any of those 3 conditions could possibly be found false at any point in the future.
But I guess I'll just keep being skeptical and you'll keep calling me names. Good day, sir.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You're not listening. I've said that I don't necessarily believe they're harmful, but I acknowledge the strong chance that they're abusing the bureaucracy for their own profit by concealing relevant data.
In other words, you disagree with scientific consensus, because........of conspiracy for which you have no evidence. Brilliant.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you're going for precision, shouldn't it be
what we're changing is an organism's ability to produce proteins that it previously couldn't.
Depending on the food, those additional proteins could end up in your bloodstream, right? Now is that bad? Maybe, maybe not. Not all industry-funded studies have held up to scrutiny either but you're right insofar as the broad consensus is that GMOs are generally safe. The longer that consensus exists, the more convinced I'll be but until we have a couple generations experience, I guess I'll be the "paranoid" one.
I'm a little surprised you didn't hear about the multimillion dollar campaigns against Prop 37 (CA) and Initiative 522 (WA) last year. The Grocery Manufacturers Association was willing to "spend anything" and it resulted in a new record: the most money ever raised to defeat an initiative in Washington state. After a little scuffle, the top donors were revealed to be Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto Company, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences LLC, and Bayer CropScience.
Howdy howdy howdy
Oops premature submit. I meant to mention I wholly support the idea of labeling not because I believe GMOs are evil or the make me "feel bad" but because of those other, demonstrated harms I mentioned:
* Unfair patent litigation against farmers who crops were contaminated
* Inevitable dilution of adjacent non-GMO crops
* Acceleration of pesticide resistance
Since the jury is, at least in my opinion, still out on the ultimate safety of these crops I don't bother claiming food safety as a primary reason for my supporting labels. It's not like adding that information would cause the economy to collapse; 60+ nations already require labeling.
And though it's not related, I'd also support additional labeling for things like potassium, phosphorous, etc when there's a valid reason. Yes, even if it's only important for some minority of the population. It could even be compromised like, 'consumers can assume 0.5% of constituent X but higher levels must be on the label'.
Howdy howdy howdy
Ugh, forgot /. strips carets. That last sentence wasn't very clear. Here:
It could even be a compromise like, 'consumers can assume less than 0.5% of constituent X if not mentioned but higher levels must be on the label'.
Howdy howdy howdy
Being a GMO food also doesn't magically induce some special extra mutation property into a plant either. A GMO plant wouldn't "diverge a great deal further" from a non-GMO unless you can propose a mechanism that would cause a higher rate of mutation due to transgene engineering.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Of course it was, that and the Pusztai affair are really the only studies that the anti-GMO propaganda machine have to continually trot out. It matters not that these were shown to be bunk, because they know people will typically believe what they read and not take the time to research the rest of the story, especially when it caters to their existing beliefs.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
I don't mean to sound like I disagree with you, but I hate hearing this arguement being made as a reason why GMO food is not needed. I wish I could remember who I originally heard express it, but I read a reply to this argument that went something like "so instead of just a distribution problem, you would rather it be both a distribution AND a supply problem?" I would rather only have to deal with one issue because of an excess of food than just barely being able to make it with the supply we have AND assholes stealing it all as well.
This may be true, but does that take into account the population growth since then? I really don't know. According to this first link I found from Googling "world population 1970", the world population was roughly half what it is today. Whether or not our population should be increasing at that rate is a different argument, but it is the reality.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Several (but naturally not all) proteins in peanuts are responsible for the allergies. If thorough testing was done to ensure that the plant produced had the desired trait and only the desired trait from the peanut, that would be one thing. However, testing seems to be sparse and GM varieties have a way of escaping.
As for diverging, I mean they can stick arbitrary genes into the plant that could never get there by normal breeding in a single generation. For example, a fish gene (just try to cross a salmon with wheat in a single generation!).
In fact, there is evidence that GM techniques do sometimes lead to unstable expression not only of the added gene but other genes in the plant.
Then you're arguing out of ignorance.
Okay, sure, GMO foods - even the bugs won't touch it, and you want to feed it to people. What is next? When they can actually connect something wrong with it we'll just modify the human genome so that human physiology can tolerate it? Now that genetically modifying food is okay and we've modified human genome to tolerate it, we can modify it to be addictive too right? I was never sold on the idea of necessity of doing it in the first place.
What is next?
Hopefully, next you'll go do some research about why there is broad scientific consensus that GMOs are safe.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Actually, I don't think I need to research very damn far at all to see exactly how far business will put itself above health concerns, if you have any questions take a good look at reasoning for war in today's world. Big business has deep pockets, and all the more to pay a scientist to tell people it is safe. If someone were to pay a scientist to tell you it is safe to jump off a bridge would you do it? As the condition of the economy deteriorates, the price for making someone tell a lie gets cheaper, and from the scientists prospective facing coercion of some form for going "against the grain" I'd have to say makes it even cheaper. Think about it, how many folks though RSA security was safe?
So, the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe, but you disagree, not on a factual basis, but because you think (without evidence) that those scientists are being bribed? Do you always come to your searingly insightful conclusions this way?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Hey why not, corporations pay off politicians all the time don't they? It's just the world we live in, if you don't see it then either you are the one naive or you simply refuse to. I'd like to see a study on the viability of corruption on your "scientific consensus".
Hey why not, corporations pay off politicians all the time don't they?
Sure, it's a reasonable hypothesis. Unfortunately your evidence is extremely thin, especially contrasted with the overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Of course that aspect could be attributed to corporate policy that evidence not be left out laying around as that might just be a bit detrimental to profits, and/or a hand slap by the gobberment in the form of a fine. Regardless, I am not, nor will ever be an advocate of GMO for the simple reasoning that no good can come of man kind playing in life's kitchen. Add consideration of corporate greed? Forget it.
Regardless, I am not, nor will ever be an advocate of GMO for the simple reasoning that no good can come of man kind playing in life's kitchen
Blanket idiocy.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, either you respect life or you don't. Is it man's greed that makes you think that man is a better genetic engineer than millions of years of trial and error on part of good old mother nature? Or is it laziness or costs due to the insect issues driving such a dangerous approach? No matter, but I see to err on the side of caution in your book as a believer is to be of "Blanket idiocy". Suppose all I can say is happy bridge jumping, maybe they'll sell you one, or maybe some beach front property in Louisiana. As it becomes more difficult to avoid GMO in the stores, I'd expect more resistance.
Well, either you respect life or you don't. Is it man's greed that makes you think that man is a better genetic engineer than millions of years of trial and error on part of good old mother nature?
When you say it like that, I realize you are right. We should get rid of vaccines too, since they aren't natural. And houses, let's all sleep under the stars.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That might be almost as extreme as genetically modified food.
You didn't actually provide an argument. You made a broad observation (yes, drugs should elicit an effect) followed by a questionable assertion (aren't GMO crops supposedly distinguishably healthier?)
Aside from Golden Rice I'm not aware of any claims of GMOs being healthier.
'yet' was an allusion to potential but not-immediately-apparent, chronic or cumulative effects. I would bring up DDT/Agent Orange/... but those are very extreme examples and most definitely would/will feed trolls. More likely, if detrimental effects do appear, they won't be lethal, just suboptimal. Meanwhile, waiting won't do me any harm.
DDT/Agent Orange are biologically active molecules, side effects are expected. I'd definitely be in favour of testing some GMO's that do have a potential to go wrong for longer periods, but the question has to be for what? If you don't have any idea of what you're testing for then how do you decide when you've tested enough? That's the issue, no one has been able to show how GMO's are a health risk.
What we currently have is an absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.
As you yourself said "More likely, if detrimental effects do appear, they won't be lethal, just suboptimal". Why do you think this? Because we have decades of evidence of nothing going wrong, this has ruled out the hypothesis of significant health effects for these crops. If the only risks you can present are claims of "suboptimal" health you're presenting a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
I stole this Sig