Slashdot Mirror
Fraud Detected In Science Research That Suggested GMO Crops Were Harmful (nature.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Three science papers that had suggested that genetically modified crops were harmful to animals and have been used by activist groups to argue for their ban have been found to contain manipulated and possibly falsified data. Nature reports: "Papers that describe harmful effects to animals fed genetically modified (GM) crops are under scrutiny for alleged data manipulation. The leaked findings of an ongoing investigation at the University of Naples in Italy suggest that images in the papers may have been intentionally altered. The leader of the lab that carried out the work there says that there is no substance to this claim. The papers' findings run counter to those of numerous safety tests carried out by food and drug agencies around the world, which indicate that there are no dangers associated with eating GM food. But the work has been widely cited on anti-GM websites — and results of the experiments that the papers describe were referenced in an Italian Senate hearing last July on whether the country should allow cultivation of safety-approved GM crops. 'The case is very important also because these papers have been used politically in the debate on GM crops,' says Italian senator Elena Cattaneo, a neuroscientist at the University of Milan whose concerns about the work triggered the investigation.
This article is going to further cloud the issue and I fear its going to give Monsanto and its ilk free reign to continue their abuse of the local seed supply. The issue has never been about GMO itself, its been about how GMO is used. Genetically modifying crops to produce more, be resistant to fungus, or have a longer shelf life is a net positive and is nothing more than a more advanced form of selective breeding. Its when you use it to introduce resistance to toxic chemicals that you start to have a real problem. That resistance not only allows to overuse of toxic chemicals (to the point of saturating the local environment), you also introduce a form of addiction where the farmer becomes dependent on the chemical. This addiction dooms the farmer to a form of indentured servitude and will eventually result in their exiting the market due to unsustainability.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Why is it FUD? you have evidence that says otherwise or are you just casting your own FUD as you don't like GM foods?
Then why are people opposed to GMO crops? If you disagree with some corporation's tactics then oppose that, don't oppose GMO crops.
Probably the later.
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer. There's all of about zero credible scientific data against it.
Furthermore, the efforts to label it are purely for the purpose of stigmatizing it and shouldn't be taken seriously. The reason ingredients are labeled is to help people with dietary concerns (such as allergies) however there's no dietary or other concerns with GMO food, hence labeling serves no useful (other than perhaps religious) purpose.
Presumably, you are referring to glyphosate resistant crops. If you think glyphosate (or some other GMO-related chemical) is "toxic", why are you arguing against GMOs and not what is actually toxic? Oh, yes... because both the US and the EU regulatory agencies have determined that it is, in fact, not toxic as used in agriculture and permit its continued use. Now, this issue may be revisited by the courts, but until then, the science is settled, at least from a legal point of view.
Saying that farmers become "addicted" to glyphosate is disingenuous and manipulative. What happens is that GMOs actually result in lower costs and higher yields, so farmers that don't use it can't compete (unless they manage to sell into the "organic" market). In different words, what you are actually saying is that GMOs and glyphosate work as advertised.
Face it, you have lost the scientific and economic arguments. GMOs and glyphosates are generally considered safe and they are (by your own reasoning) effective at what they promise to do, namely increase productivity.
Now, having said that, I am perfectly sympathetic to wanting to eat "natural" vegetables without any GMO or herbicides involved in their production. But unlike you, I don't fool myself into believing that that is a rational preference; it's the same kind of preference I have for natural fiber over synthetics, and wood over plastic. And when I indulge in that preference, I'm willing to pay the higher price for the vegetables myself, instead of trying to bamboozle others with fake scientific arguments about "toxicity" and "addiction".
The same thing is true of hybrids as well, though. You never know when you're going to get something unexpected. But for some reason we treat "traditional" breeding like hybridization and the intentional creation of mutants as doing God's work and direct genetic modification as the thing that will kill us all. The wisdom of creating a novel organism depends entirely on the properties of that organism, not on how you created it.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Labeling serves the purpose of choice, the consumer has the right to choose to buy or not to buy something based on whatever the hell they want. They can choose based on country it was made in, or whether or not the company name contains an "e", or the logo is pretty, that is their business. Companies use this to their advantage all the time. If a significant proportion of the population care GE products are in there goods then it should not be up to the company, or the government to say if it is reliant. If it is a stupid choice so be it, they can buy more expensive products for no good reason.
You could easily argue that the government force companies should place all there products in plain packaging as to not unduly influence the consumer, under the same premise consumers are stupid, they need protecting from themselves.
Indeed "faith" is part of the philosophy of Science - The faith that the real world exists outside of our individual experience, ie: there's a "reality" that we can observe and agree about what we observe, it's not just a figment of our imagination. Unlike many other "ways of thinking" science does not require blind faith, nor does it claim "the truth", but if history is any kind of judge, it does offer an increasingly accurate approximation to it.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.