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.
"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?
I believe that the food itself is probably OK for human consumption although GMO food (especially tomatoes) does seem to have much less and/or odd flavour. I think the biggest risk about GMO food is oddly overlooked, and that is that it will lead to a varietal monoculture controlled by a single company (Monsanto). Do you really want a single corporate with their thumb on all corn production for example? Do you really want to loose your choices of different varieties of things?
Also look at what happens when a disease hits a monoculture, It already happened to bananas in 1965, and even todays bananas still seriously risk going extinct. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/...
Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.
And about alternatives;
The only guaranteed solution to fix malnutrition is a diverse healthy diet. Providing people with real food based on ecological agriculture not only addresses malnutrition, but is also a scaleable solution to adapt to climate change.
The logical argument against GMOs is not that there is anything wrong with modifying genomes
No, it is and always has been exactly that. Where do you think the whole "frankenfood" argument comes from? Stop being so naive.
which is to be raised in soils heavily laden with chemicals
If chemicals are bad, then quite honestly, you should just stop eating period. Every plant that exists is made up of thousands of chemicals. In fact you should stop drinking and breathing too for the same reason. You should probably stop existing too, because your body has thousands of chemicals within it as well.
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.
No, they haven't. Glyphosate in particular has only been found dangerous to those who handle massive quantities of it at a time, just like many other chemicals, including ones that reside within your body and are supposed to be there. And autism? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any idea what autism even is? No, of course you don't; you listen to whatever bro science you find on AlexJones.com and believe it's fact without bothering to cross check it. And besides, your claim is complete bullshit:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/...
People like you are the reason so many hipster douches are horribly wrong on this issue. You are seriously exactly the type of person who would have followed Hitler just because he made a bunch of populist (yet very incorrect) arguments about why Jews are ruining the world. Think as an individual for once in your life. If a bunch of your friends or some "really cool dude" you know makes an incredible claim, view it with a critical eye until you've done your own research. Pamphlets handed around and random "nature is best" blogs don't count as research, in case you had to ask.
That may be the point from your personal perspective but when I read news reports about people destroying research crops in the middle of the night, and calling for the banning of 'GMOs', people I've met who claim that it's unnatural and therefore wrong, or that modifying the genes of a carrot will give you cancer, they lose all credibility to me.
From my experience that's the public face of the Anti-GMO movement.
'GMO' stands for Genetically Modified Organism, it doesn't stand for predatory patent practices or carcinogenic pesticides and if it's easier for some political movement to conflate all these things into one easy to name bogeyman at the expense of actual productive uses of the technology, they'll get no support from me.
My problem with GMOs is not that the scary stuff that Greenpeace peddles, but the business practices of companies like Monsanto. I also have a problem with the supposedly "pro-science" folks who are anti-GMO labeling on the basis that scare-mongering will keep people from buying GMO-labeled products. I have a Ph.D. in a scientific field and one my absolute most deeply held beliefs is that nothing is more anti-science than withholding information. Don't like what people do with that information? Tough. It's your responsibility as a scientist or pro-science person to educate your audience. Telling people they've got it wrong and don't worry, they should just trust you, and no, we're not going to have a conversation about this is flat out anti-science, period, end of story. If you want people to be OK with GMOs, fine, I agree with you, but it do your job as a scientist, give people complete information, and help them understand the issue instead of making them feel like they're too stupid to understand it.
By the way, one of my other deeply held beliefs is that if you are a scientist and you cannot explain your field to a layperson in a way that they can understand, you probably don't understand your own field very well. In other words, if your excuse is that people are too uneducated to understand, then I think you need to reassess how you're explaining things. You're the educated person, the onus is on you to share your knowledge. If you can't do that, shut up.
And my own skepticism. Genetically modifying food on the molecular level is not the same as breeding. You will never see in nature where mechanical and chemical means are used to cross species like it's done in the lab.
Actually this is 100% false. Not only do genes cross from species to species in nature, but it actually happens all the time. In fact the human genome -- your genome -- has some 100,000 gene fragments from some other species inserted into it. Three of those genes spliced into you are actually complete gene sequences, one of which is responsible for the human placenta.
http://www.isciencemag.co.uk/f...
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.
It was all about bashing Monsanto — the "evil" company, that specialized in GMO seeds and holds thousands of patents.
European competitors in particular were so afraid of it rising, they started a PR campaign to mongering fears of GMOs. The campaign created public's perception so negative, some countries (France, Germany) ban GMOs outright and vandals attack growers. Lately Monsanto (and DuPont) must've started fighting back, because American media began defending the technology — even calling its opponents "anti-Science" (where have I heard that before?).
But now that a German firm is seeking to buy Monsanto, Europeans need to be disabused of their misconceptions too.
GMO-haters have nothing but FUD — they've heard it is (or may be) dangerous, but don't know why — somebody told them... See also "chemtrails" and "Trump is racist".
Unfortunately, even in the US food can not be labeled "Organic", if it contains GMOs...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Horseshit. What does my ability to make consumer choices about the provenance of the food I eat have to do with millions of people who are starving?: If I don't eat RoundupTM Corn, does that mean starving people in Bangladesh won't get to eat their Golden RiceTM? Is the food safety of the world dependent on hiding a single true bit of information from food consumers?
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?
If it's so safe, label it as GMO like other countries do and let people choose. Any time you have to hide something, there's usually a reason.
First of all, just because you don't list something doesn't mean you're "hiding" something. Food containers and labels have limited space. There's a basically infinite amount of facts about a food you could list on a label, but most of it is deemed irrelevant by companies. ("Gosh darn it! Where are the numbers listing the viscosity, specific gravity, and thermal diffusivity of my yogurt on the label!?! What are they hiding?!")
Second, the FDA and various government organizations regulate what companies can put on labels (including what they can NOT put on labels), often for very good reasons. Information taken out of context can be a problem. For example, a few years back there was this big scare about mercury in processed foods that contained HFCS, most of which had mercury amounts in the range of a part per billion. This got huge headlines -- "OMG -- HFCS puts mercury in our food!!" Except for one really basic problem: the levels of mercury in the HFCS-containing foods were actually LOWER than the mercury levels in most other "natural" foods you'd buy at the supermarket. See, mercury is a naturally occurring substance, and a level of a few parts per billion is typical for many foods. The "study" didn't even bother to isolate whether HFCS was the primary source of mercury in the processed foods, which it probably was not.
I mention all of this because I remember seeing some discussion on the internet that wanted to put labels about the "dangers" of HFCS on food too -- "WARNING: Foods with HFCS may contain mercury" or something like that. I don't think anyone ever considered taking this seriously, but there's a perfect example of a factually correct statement (HFCS foods may indeed contain mercury) but which gives a completely bogus impression about the role of HFCS or the normal expected amounts of mercury in food.
Are companies "hiding something" by refusing to put a factual but misleading label on food?? If GMOs are misunderstood by the majority of the population, then by forcing companies to put information on a label, aren't we promoting those misunderstandings rather than educating consumers?
Anyhow, all of that said, I also agree that in a democratic system, people have the right to lobby their legislators to promote whatever sort of product labeling they wish. If enough ignorant people want GMO labeling and convince their representatives to require it, that's the price companies pay for doing business in a democratic system. If they want to win over the "anti-GMO" wackos, they can lobby and run ads explaining it to the public themselves.
The problem is the label doesn't help consumers make informed decisions, it just helps them make irrational ones.
Maybe so. But people should be free to make irrational decisions.
Vitamin pills, homeopathy and feng shui are just a few examples of irrational things that lead people to spend their money unwisely. In a free society, that's just part of life's rich tapestry.
If a sufficiently significant proportion of the population wants labels, they should have labels. Your definition of irrationality is irrelevant.
Patents, related collusion/corruption are the main problem with GMOs my friend.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
> How do you label a food as GMO? What is GMO exactly?
Really? You're going to try and pull that stunt? All that shows is how utterly untrustworthy ANY GMO is. You're making our arguments for us. You can't be trusted, therefore you deserve even higher scrutiny.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Golden rice has reportedly proven difficult to cultivate. Yams, squash, carrots, kale, spinach, etc. are good sources of vitamin A, and were traditionally cultivated before the push for cash crops...but if you're going to eat the rice, it's not a part of your cash crop anyway.
Also, I'm not certain how much vitamin A there is in how much golden rice. I've never happened to run across the figure. I find it quite plausible that yams are in incredibly better source of vitamin A that is an equal weight of rice (either both or neither being dried).
Since golden rice is (or was) free for non-commercial use, and trial plots were grown by private individuals, if it were a success, then it would have by now become widespread, though not commercial. It hasn't. So the people who grew it didn't find it worth replanting.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's interesting to see that the "let's cull the herd" proponents always want to impose their rational solution on other people, not on themselves. It's like seeing union workers voting for a contract with less benefits that only apply to new people, not to existing union members.
lucm, indeed.
Look I am for GMO for a variety of reason, but the first time a kitten get calamari gene through cross breeding, or tomato get human gene through cross breeding, is the first time your argument will be valid. All those genes you speak of are either gained through virus over evolutionary period of time or simply because we had common ancestry and that again speaks of evolutionary time. It is plain misleading and genuinly make people mistrust usd when we try to "sell GMO" that people keep insisting that it is the same mechanism. When I try to sell nuclear power I don't fucking tell people it is the same principle as steam power. Because while superficially it is true, it is obvious to many that the heating element is utterly different. Stop being gits and pretend this is the same as cross breeding by farmer. It is not. But neither it is evil magic. It is just another form of easily transferring gene without spending 100000 of years.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org