Slashdot Mirror
Stop Bashing GMO Food, Say 109 Nobel Laureates (nytimes.com)
The New York Times reports:
More than 100 Nobel laureates have a message for Greenpeace: Quit the G.M.O.-bashing. Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C...
"Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production," the group of laureates wrote. "There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."
Slashdot reader ArmoredDragon writes: As an echo to that comment, one of the key benefits of GMO is increased crop yield, which means a reduced need for deforestation to make way for farmland. GMO food such as Golden Rice, which improves the micronutrient content of rice, and Low Acrylamide Spuds, which are potatoes engineered to have reduced carcinogen content compared to their natural counterparts, can possibly solve many health problems that are inherent with consuming non-GMO produce. And for those concerned about patent-related issues, many of these patents have recently expired, which means anybody can freely grow them and sell the seeds without the need to pay any royalties.
"Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production," the group of laureates wrote. "There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."
Slashdot reader ArmoredDragon writes: As an echo to that comment, one of the key benefits of GMO is increased crop yield, which means a reduced need for deforestation to make way for farmland. GMO food such as Golden Rice, which improves the micronutrient content of rice, and Low Acrylamide Spuds, which are potatoes engineered to have reduced carcinogen content compared to their natural counterparts, can possibly solve many health problems that are inherent with consuming non-GMO produce. And for those concerned about patent-related issues, many of these patents have recently expired, which means anybody can freely grow them and sell the seeds without the need to pay any royalties.
Facts schmacts, evidence be damned. 95% of the GMO bashing dosent involve facts, evidence, critical reasoning or any type of actual science outside of social. Just like vaccines, more "scientists" decrying the naysayers won't help. Now if 109 music, movie and sports stars came forward we may be talking some actual change in perception.
So far all I hear are a bunch of "concerned" people with various naturistic hippybullshit beliefs, or unspecified concerns over "genetic modifications", ignoring the wide variety of things that are being done, and the fact that everything we eat has been genetically modified by cultivation or quicker means. We should not create new religions, prove it or it doesn't exist.
Monsanto continues to push the argument over to whether modified genes are safe. The logical argument against GMOs is not that there is anything wrong with modifying genomes, but in what we have modified them to do, which is to be raised in soils heavily laden with chemicals, Round Up in particular. This has caused a massive increase of such chemicals in our diet. They have been linked to cancer, autism, and a slew of gastrointestinal problems.
Yeah that's all fine and good but have you read *obscure mommy blog article*
"But I read on the internets that GMO food is made by Big Corporation whose only motive is to line their pockets, not help people. These foods will change our DNA to make us docile and less fertile so the elites can lord over us. And the food tastes like crap, too."
Yet when asked to show the evidence for such statements they always come back with, "I can't remember" or we find out the source they read is nothing but a conspiracy web site or a completely discredited report.
But they'll continue to maintain they're right and everyone else, including every scientist who performed a study showing there is no issue with GMO food, is wrong and is only saying things are okay because they're in the pocket of Big Corporation.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I was previously against any GMO food, but after learning more about the subject it might not be that bad. I'm not saying GMO is solid, but it certainly is not one sided evil. I think the challenge for both perspectives is real information. Currently it's mostly FUD (on the no side) and Marketspeak (on the yes side).
.net is not popular around these parts, but the geek outs on dotnetrocks is really cool. Richard is awesome at reading up on specific topics, and that show really has some cool insight into gmo. They even made a followup in may. Also worth listening too.
Information is key.
I can recommend listening to dotnetrocks geek out on GMO here https://www.dotnetrocks.com/?s...
I know
Only if you use the farming methods which are already devastating our cropland. Contrary to popular belief, organic farming doesn't mean that you only use stuff on the USDA approved list. It means a cyclical system in which feces gets returned to the fields. This is a perfectly safe thing to do if you observe basic safety standards, and if you're not overmedicating your population so severely that their waste becomes a health hazard on that basis; crap left to sit around for a year turns into dirt. It can happen much more quickly if you add a little compost and stir it occasionally, but that's not strictly necessary. Or you can use systems like AIWPS to permit the use of ordinary flush toilets and sewer architecture.
Tilth is not in itself inherently harmful, although it is unnecessary and a waste of energy input. Monocropping is inherently harmful, especially when it is done continuously, without the benefit of crop rotation. This has become more and more common in factory farming. This is essentially hydroponic farming in a soil medium. Everything that the plant needs has to be supplied manually, and it's done using synthetic fertilizers made from petroleum.
It's not that GMO is inherently bad. It's that the majority of it is controlled by untrustworthy assholes who use it to no good end. They're patenting life and selling it back to us.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
when companies like Monstanto can't use our patent system to control people's access to food. I've seen poor countries have to turn down offers for free grain because they can't risk the GMO stuff being planted and then their farmers getting shaken down. It's _food_. Just regulate it already so there's enough profit motive to keep people interested as opposed to living like god-kings.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If it's so safe, label it as GMO like other countries do and let people choose.
You know how I know that you don't just want to "let people choose"? Because if that was your real concern, you'd instead introduce voluntary labeling of GMO-free foods. Like, you know, what we already have. Then people who decide to go "GMO-free" could do so to their hearts content, and you aren't using the government to promote your anti-GMO agenda.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
the key issue here is not your freedom of choosing GMO or not, it's the millions of people who are starving.
it's the same bullshit wih the malaria. Greeners sit in front of their Macbook, sipping their skinny latte, enjoying their self-righteous campaigns and brochures and tweets, while poor people thousands of miles away die of malaria and hunger.
lucm, indeed.
the key issue here is not your freedom of choosing GMO or not, it's the millions of people who are starving.
Those "millions of people" would be magically saved if only monsanto was allowed to swoop in?
That sounds like a solid argument indeed, good sir.
it's the same bullshit wih the malaria. Greeners sit in front of their Macbook, sipping their skinny latte, enjoying their self-righteous campaigns and brochures and tweets, while poor people thousands of miles away die of malaria and hunger.
Ah, so if only there were no latte-sipping skinny greeners with macbooks, there would be no malaria?
Another well-founded argument. Thank you for sharing your wisdom!
No, they don't. Labels can indicate benefits, too. There are nutritional labels, labels that say, "organic" or "kosher" or even, "New and Improved!".
The bottom line is that consumers, who are paying for every goddamn thing including the research into GMOs, want labels indicating GMOs. It doesn't matter why. They're paying the bills, they get to make consumer choices for whatever reason they want, including ones that you might think unimportant.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Wouldn't it be better for the society to agree on some kind of international legal and financial framework that would fund public research in GMOs?
This I think is the key to the problem. GMO technology could do bad things if it is not handled responsibly and in today's world the only thing you can trust large corporations to do is to look after their short term financial interests even, stupidly, when that damages their long term interests...and before you come up with counter examples just remember that the CEO can change so even if a company is ethical now there are no guarantees for tomorrow.
I would absolutely trust the work done by publicly funded biologists bound to follow strict ethics guidelines and required to publish in peer reviewed journals. The system is not perfect but mistakes do tend to get found and corrected. However I worry a lot about the GMO research done by large corporations. We have already seen that some pharmaceutical companies repeat drug tests until they get the result they need do show a drug works. How likely is it that a company would repeat GMO testing until the results show that it is ok to deploy? What happens if a scientist in such a corporation has an idea that something might be wrong with the product and wants to do extra tests to confirm it is ok? An academic could do the tests to learn something but would a corporation risk jeopardizing a major product for a test which is not legally required?