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.

20 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. Quit it already! by burtosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Quit it already! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, social science is important for the GMO debate: a significant portion of it is how it makes people dependent on corporations with tight imaginary property control and what impacts that could have in the long run. That remains even if the biological arguments of the opposers to GMO are shown to be invalid.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Quit it already! by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you even read thhe summary? Hint: look at the last sentence.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:Quit it already! by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tight corporate IP control and the potential for homogeneity in the food supply are both valid concerns wrt/ GMO food. But aside from the occasional, non-specific, and inarticulate rant of "Monsanto is teh evilz!"; a very tiny minority of the anti-GMO crowd addresses either of those issues.

      Instead, it's nearly all incoherent rants about how "frankenfood" is not what "mother nature" intended for us to eat. They don't cite scientific research to support their arguments, they cite "alternative medicine" websites and some random person's blog. They don't use dispassionate reason and peer review, they use scare tactics and heartstrings. Sorry. But these are not the sort of people with whom I care to have any sort of conversation.

      We can solve the corporate control problem with patent reform. Drop them back to the original term of 14 years, close the "change one minor thing and re-patent" loophole, and make damn sure they STAY at 14 years and don't let them ever become renewable or extended and grow out of control like copyright has. Frankly, I don't begrudge a business a 14-year monopoly on "super rice" or "Roundup Ready" whatever... Or, for that matter, a song or a movie, 14 years would be perfectly fine and respectable for copyright too... so long as everything did truly enter the public domain at the end of that term.

      The problem of very productive GMOs encouraging homogeneity in the food supply would be a bit harder and would require more nuance, and possibly regulation, to solve. But I'm sure if we disregard the scaremongers and consider things reasonably; we could work the problem and figure a solution.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    4. Re:Quit it already! by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's amazing how much misunderstanding of the U.S. patent system (and its history) you've packed into a single sentence.

      Drop them back to the original term of 14 years

      Sounds enticing on the surface, but keep in mind that was 14 years from issue. The U.S. didn't start measuring term from filing until 1995. Before that, people like Jerome Lemelson could manipulate the system by keeping applications tied up in the Patent Office literally for decades, all the while massaging the claims to cover wherever the market happened to be going in the meantime, and still get 17 years of fresh term when each patent finally was issued. I doubt you really want to go back to that kind of a system. And given that it can often take 3+ years for the Patent Office to examine a patent, the current term of 20 years from the filing date isn't effectively that much longer than the scheme you're proposing going back to.

      close the "change one minor thing and re-patent" loophole

      No such "loophole" exists. Right now today, advances over the prior art are only patentable if they would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 35 U.S.C. 103. If your real quibble is that the Patent Office issues too many patents with claims that actually would have been obvious, I won't disagree, but the solution is to more consistently enforce the rules that currently exist, not change them. The new procedures put in place by the America Invents Act (such as inter partes review) are helping with this a great deal.

      and make damn sure they STAY at 14 years and don't let them ever become renewable or extended and grow out of control like copyright has.

      Nobody is suggesting doing any of these things, so there's nothing to "reform."

    5. Re:Quit it already! by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      GMO is for Liberals
      As
      Global Warming is for conservatives

      Liberals have a hard time realizing that something is safe.
      While conservatives have a hard time realizing that something is dangerious.

      We need to take the political nonsence out of science and teach science as it suppose to be a method of determining truth by a rigorous set of rules. Let's not put on TV every new hypothesis and call it a theory. So people jump blindly on scientific guesses before the process runs it corse.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Quit it already! by doom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm "anti GMO". At least according to the pro-GMO activists. I want accurate food labels. That's all.

      I want to indulge in trendy fear-mongering based on irrational grounds. Why won't they give me the tools I need?

    7. Re:Quit it already! by AaronW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that many times these people simply can't afford other vegetables.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    8. Re:Quit it already! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Lock-in, once you've planted a seed you can't go back because any remaining seeds could grow and the farmer can then be sued.

      BS. The farmer can buy new seed and plant it. There is no "lock-in".

      2) Suing neighbouring farmers when the seeds get into their crops (documented, google it)

      More BS. Monsanto sued Perry Schmeiser for intentionally and repeatedly growing patented canola. They have never sued anyone for unintentional infringement. Next time you assert that something is "documented", you may want to confirm that it actually is.

      3) Expense, no surprises that the GMO seeds are more expensive and require expensive pesticides etc from the company that sells the seeds.

      Some GMO plants require no pesticides. The most widely used GMO crops are glyphosate tolerant. Glyphosate herbicide is cheap, is not patented, and is manufactured by many companies.

  2. Or bash it with actual proof... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Information is key by fuzzyf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).
    Information is key.

    I can recommend listening to dotnetrocks geek out on GMO here https://www.dotnetrocks.com/?s...

    I know .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.

  4. "one of the key benefits of GMO is increased crop" by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    one of the key benefits of GMO is increased crop yield

    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.'"
  5. I'll cheerfully stop bashing it by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:I'll cheerfully stop bashing it by backslashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why don't you bash Monsanto instead of bashing GMOs? It's like bashing Ford for bad drivers.

  6. Re:Label it then by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  7. you should also post the response Greanpeace gave by gerddie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    One should always hear both sides, and this article does exactly this with an update. About the bashing of ‘Golden’ rice Greenpeace says:

    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.

  8. Re:Missing the point.... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:OK, here we go... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  10. Re:Wow. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. Labels indicate safety problems.

    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.
  11. Re:GMO safe if done responsibly by swalve · · Score: 3, Informative

    Says who? Just go buy some.