I've got no problem with that. I'm in academics. I'm actually just a lowly student at a land grant university, no one important, although I have discussed this topic at length with people who are, predominantly someone who once made the front page of the most prestigious biology journal (which is to say, someone very important and very knowledgeable), so while I consider myself an far from an expert, I base my points on what I have learned from people who are experts in plant biology/molecular biology/genetics/agriculture/ect., and I do have experience, and a lot more knowledge & understanding of the science and related issues of genetically modified crops than most people.
Why was the person you were talking to concerned? I don't know. Most people that I've talked to aren't worried at all about that particular trait. It just seems really strange to me that the person you talked to would say something like that about both Bt and the regulatory process. Regulation is very strict (at least here in the US it is, and I'd assume the same is true of Australia, if not more so), and I really haven't seen any convincing evidence that the Bt protein is concerning. With cross pollination, well, that happens, however, with a bit of foresight I really don't think it's that big of a problem in light of all the outcrossing varieties of crops that are really easily cross pollinated that have managed to stay pure lines (as in not crossing with other lines, for example, there are hundreds of varieties of squash, like Red Kuri, Jarrahdale, and Galeux d'Eysines that have existed and been preserved as pure lines for hundreds of years). Seedsavers have been doing it for ages (and heirloom enthusiasts like myself continue to do it today), and just because there are now transgenes out there I don't see how that changes things much. Perhaps they were taking more of an issue with the fact that genes and plants can be patented. I, personally, don't have much of a problem with that, but I can respect the opinions of people who do, and I can understand good arguments against it, and I can see cutting back on the power those patents can grant a bit. I'm sure that as someone working in computers you've gone through enough third person troubleshooting to appreciate the difficulty of understanding something technical via someone who isn't quite as experienced in that area, but the legal/patent thing would be my guess anyway, and if that's the case they are far from alone even among experts in that concern, and although I do disagree, I would not call such a position loony at all. Australia you say? I wonder if they know Dr. Tribe at the University of Melboure.
And I hope I didn't come off as too snarky the first time. Many people are very ignorant on this subject, but very few will actually admit it; most just think farmers are stupid/evil and that seeing Jurassic Park or some silly documentary makes them as knowledgeable as all the agriculturalists, geneticists, ect who devote their lives to studying this stuff (Dunning-Kruger strikes again).
Oh gee, didn't see that one coming. No one's ever accused me of being an industry apologist./sarcasm So, have you ever worked with GMOs? I have. Have you ever been in a molecular biology lab? I have. Have you ever even talked with a plant biologist? I have, quite frequently. Or are you just playing the same tired canard that every quack, crank, and denialist plays when they have no evidence to back their unscientific point yet refuse to consider that maybe they're wrong? Have you ever considered that maybe the reason I'm handwaving is because all the science is only on one side, and all the other side has is sloppy studies, non falsifiable musing, and a conspiracy, which you so nicely demonstrate with your shill gambit. Everything I've said is basic information that just about any plant biologist will tell you, not controversial at all among relevant experts. I hardly went into the details. And if you'd actually read what I wrote you'd see I covered that several times. Funny thing about stupid conspiracies is, they always attack some big company or something with over the top misinformation, so whenever you correct those lies for the sake of accuracy, you are then accused of working for them and dismissed. A great strategy for appealing to the scientifically illiterate.
But hey, if actually knowing what you're talking about makes one a manipulator, no wonder the world is in the state it's in. It's people like you who assume anyone who actually has education and experience is part of teh ebil conspiracy. Am I condescending? Maybe a little, and you know why? Because education won't work, people like you won't read the easilyavailabletexts on the subject, you won't listen to petty little things like facts and reason, or even basic logic. Cracking a damn science book is so hard for some people that I don't see many other options besides mockery. It worked for science based medicine, maybe it will work for science based agriculture, and speaking of which, people like you are the reason kids still die of measles.
Yeah, but kosher labels are voluntary. I've never seen anything specifically labeled as non-kosher, and producers shouldn't have to label things as such. I have no problem with people willingly choosing to label products about if they do or don't have GMOs. What I don't like is that some people want to force it on everyone else.
I don't know about that, I would be surprised if there was one that went through a decent approval process that later turned out to be dangerous. There have been some before, but I really don't think catching it is that big of an issue. Now, could one in a country with less developed regulation let one through? Maybe. Could someone develop one as intentionally dangerous? Unfortunately, that is also possible. If you have the right genes, equipment, enzymes, ect., people would be surprised at how easy it really is (I've made them before. It's nothing like what you see in the movies. It's a lot less flashy unfortunately). Maybe in the not too distant future there will be a DIY Biology community, and who knows what will come of that. Strictly speaking, it's possible, but I for one have a fair degree of confidence that someone will catch it before it is too late. If any problem does happen, it will probably be due to corporate greed, not unexpected science, which is why it really would be a good idea to step up public funding for these sort of things. Funny thing is, so many of the same anti-GMO people who complain about private corporate GMOs then turn around and complain that their tax dollars fund public research for university made GMOs!
You are right that it is progress. Not only can this make agricutlure more efficient, productive, and stable in developed countries, which is certainty great, but everyone should also know that there is something bigger here. By 2050 the population is expected to be 9 billion. That has significance. We will either need to make a few billion people disappear (not a very pleasant idea), increase our cultivated land (goodbye Amazon rainforests, Congo jungles, and Borneo cloudforests), or develop an ever increasing agricultural science and technology, including new input reducing methods, new improved chemical inputs, and new biotechnology. I read once (haven't confirmed if this is true) that if we still used the same farming techniques we used in the 50's we'd need an additional cultivated area the size of North America to feed everyone. We need to go forward. Sitting still is not an option.
Good to see that you and a few people other get it. Most clearly don't, and I think I just wasted six and a half hours banging out a dozen responses that aren't going to change anyone's mind anyway. It just baffles me that people who don't know anything about this subject, who don't even think out logical thoughts on it, still think they know more than everyone who actually studies it because they saw some jackass on a Youtube video. Bah, with the attitudes of the anti-GMO crowd I don't know why I even bother. No wonder so many biotech students get MBAs instead of working in the most misunderstood and hated field in science.
Labeling is a good thing. It lets us all make informed choices based on our personal preferences.
I know no one wants to hear this, but labeling isn't about personal preference. It is about providing important information. Personally, I'm a big variety freak, I like knowing what variety things are, but some things, like blueberries and blackberries, are almost never labeled with the variety, and as much as I'd like to know, I don't have the right to legally require that information of producers. Another example that comes to mind, once, a Muslim professor who taught a class I was taking couldn't buy some Gummi Worms because the gelatin didn't specify if it was from a cow or pig, and I'm sure he would love if there was a label informing him if the gummis were Halal or Haram, but again, as much preference as he might have for such a label, he does not have the right to force producers to accommodate him. Do we have the right to create a market for those thing, yes, and does another person also have the right to supply that market, yes, but to make everyone else react to our preferences, no. On the other hand some things, like the presence of peanuts or milk, should be labeled because that can present a health risk to some people. Things like trans-fats and hydrogenated oils should be labeled because we have ample scientific evidence suggesting they're dangerous (IMO they should be banned from food use but that's another topic). GMOs are much more like the first category, and you can't treat those two categories as equivalent, because they're just not. If there was a clear and present health danger coming from GMOs, then it would be a much different story, but (the typical pseudoscientific riffraff all controversial things attract aside) no approved GMO has ever been linked to a single human health concern. Ever. Over 2 trillion GMO meals consumed, no health problems. 0/2,000,000,000,000 is pretty good. And of course we can muse about those oft discuses never described hypothetical long term problems, but with no evidence to suggest they're real and no way to falsify the notion, that simply isn't even worth talking about. Like Stephen Gould once said, 'I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.' Same thing here.
So no, labels are not there for personal preference, but to deliver real, relevant information. How a plant was created is not relevant, and furthermore, all that would do is scare people. It would be like if someone required that bananas be labeled according to how much radiation they emitted. It is true that bananas are slightly radioactive, but there is no valid reason to label them as such. And yes, tracking each and every shipment of grain and soy and canola ext through all the processes they go through would be quite costly, and I for one would strongly prefer not to pay extra for something without a good science based reason.
I'm guessing you don't know much about this area, and the molecular biologist you spoke to was not a plant molecular biologist were they? First off, the pesticide commonly used in GMOs is the Bt protein, and that same protein has been used in organic farming for decades. It isn't new at all. And it is only active in alkaline environments (like the gut of an insect) where it binds to specific receptors in certain types of insects (which is why it affects cotton bollworm but not mirid), and if you've got an alkaline gut, GMOs are the least of your worries. And I don't know where you got that info about regulation, but these GMOs are very highly regulated, by the FDA , by the USDA, and by the EPA. It takes years and millions of dollars to get a GMO approved. It's actually fairly simple to make a GMO (once all the genes are identified and cut out ect), and yet, there's a reason why so few plants are genetically modified. Regulation. I would say if anything, it is too strict. Because really, you need to do more testing than necessary. I know this isn't a popular sentiment, but I'll say it anyway: if the only detectable difference between a GMO and the non-GMO counterpart it the expression of the transgene (or cisgene or anti-sense gene or whatever), that it is reasonable to believe that is the only difference. Otherwise you drift into invisible pink unicorn territory, basing your agreements on something that might be there but for which no proof of it's existence exists. Any molecular biologist worth their salt should know about all the protein detection tests there are nowadays. And the funny thing about cross pollination (which is the proper term, not contamination, thank you) is that we actually do have safeguards against that in the terminator technology...but everyone threw such a big temper tantrum over that one that no one uses it. Facepalm.
Sorry to tell you, but you just fell for it in both of those cases. The first one is kind of a wierd one. The person claiming to have linked GMOs to those things actually claimed to have linked glyphosate (not the GMO itself), an herbicide that some GMOs are resistant to, with, well, everything. This guy basically claimed that glyphosate somehow spontaniously created a fungal life form the size of a virus that caused pretty much every known disease in both animals and plants. Think about that for a few seconds. Spontanious generation, smallest eukaryote ever, ability to infect everything...if exprodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, then there better be something pretty good behind that one. But that guy hasn't released his data. He's getting his 15 minutes of fame, but no one can review his work. This hasn't stopped the anti-GMO people from trumpeting it as gospel, but from a scientific standpoint, his claims are meaningless.
As for the second one, like the first, that one was big news in the popular media, not so much among scientists. A few weeks ago I spoke with a fairly well known plant molecular biologist who had never even heard of that one. What should it tell you that something like that has made so little impact? Yeah, nothing good. The sources I read about that did review it, the French High Concil on Biotechnology, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and European Food Safety Authority didn't think too highly of it. Basically the study was some wierd statistics based on Monsanto's own data, and in the end they concluded that Monsanto's studies were insufficient to make any conclusions, while at the same time concluding based on the data that they were dangerous. Uh, what?
Basically, every time there's one of those 'GMOs gonna get you' stories out there, they never, at least that I know of, have much to them. The analogy I like to use is the vaccines-autism case. You are going to hear anti-vax nonsense for years to come, despite the fact that the science on it is very clear. To me, someone in plant science, this GMO thing is no different. You are going to hear GMOs associated with every health problem there is until the day you die. But if you look at it really good, there actually isn't much strong evidence to suggest that there is or will be and health problem with them. Of course I supposed it might happen, but without evidence to suggest that, you could make the same non-falsifiable statement about anything. And hey, if you really feel strongly about it that buying organic gives you peace of mind that whatever, that's cool to. But I would hope it isn't something you really lose any sleep over. I've heard of cases of mothers struggling to make ends meet, wondering if they should sacrifices even more to buy expensive non-GMO food, and that, I think, is just horrible, horrible that people (and by people I mean organic lobby groups like the Organic Consumer's Association) choose to use fear as a marketing tool. If you're that worried, call up the agricultural extension office of you're local land grant university. You really can't trust Monsanto, but those guys you can trust, and they're there to help you.
And I just realized I just replied to two of your posts on this. Oops.
The thing to understand with those is that, with anything controversial thing, there will be studies to back it. There's dozens of studies claiming to proven that homeopathy works, but no one takes homeopathy seriously because they were all crap. Here, those things come and go. Take not that they have never, not once, been able to gain any sort of scientific consensus. There's a reason for that. They've never even been able to describe how and why GMOs would be dangerous. Genetic engineering is a wide topic; if a viral resistance gene with one promoter and terminator sequence inserted by agrobactrium somehow did the same thing as a fungal resistance gene with a different promoter & terminator inserted by gene gun had the same affects, that'd be news indeed. But the the anti-GMO guys don't even talk about that stuff (probably because they know nothing of the technical aspects of genetic engineering), nor do they even make an attempt to describe what protein is the cause of these alleged health problems, and ultimately, without that, and in the face of so much that finds no health problems, I'm not impressed. No causative agent, weak and often highly criticized science, that doesn't sway me much. Sure, you could blame the Cry protein or the glyphosate but that says bugger all about every other GMO that they also attack. That people seem to think genetic engineering is all one thing really shows their level of experience with the topic.
I haven't heard of that first study, but considering that there is an abundance of evidence otherwise, I'm going to go with consensus here. As for the second link, that was nothing impressive. Some guy made a claim, never even released his data, and everyone lapped it up. Yes, the same people constantly complaining that the piles of research open to anyone with a journal subscription were somehow not transparent enough accepted this guys claim without a shred of data. The mind boggles. As for the third link, ha, PrisonPlanet. If those guys said the sky was blue I'd go outside in horror to see what color it really was. A conspiracy nutjob site isn't even worth investigating, sorry. I'm surprised you didn't link to the latest one, where some guys in Canada claimed to have found the Cry1Ab protein used in GMOs in fetal blood, despite the fact that the test they used can't even detect things at the level they found it at.
I'd be really interested in knowing just what that protein was or any additional details if you've got them. The only two proteins inserted into Monsanto's soybeans (presently, there would be an additional pair if they get the omega-3 soybeans approved) are the Cry proteins and EPSP synthase proteins, and I don't think I've ever heard anything about either of those being proven linked to any sort of problem (at least not commonly used Cry proteins anyway). Although, given that this was the same country to reject the Rainbow papaya produced by the University of Hawaii, perhaps the most benign GMO on the market today, it could very well be due to something similar to the European GMO situation, where GMOs are banned in theory because of safety questions, but in reality as a way to get around WTO protectionism laws. Given that Japan, like many other developed nations, loves it's ag subsidies, I would not be surprised in the least if that were the case.
A simple tl;dr would have sufficed. Here's what you do. Hold the button that says Ctrl, the press the button with the F. Then type in the word 'herbicide' in the little box that pops up. It will actually take you right to the part of my post where I talked about that! kthxbai
Huh? The rBGH related WTVT/Monsanto affair? With the stupefying end of it: FCC policy against falsification (of news) was not a "law, rule, or regulation"?
I confess, I'm in horticulture, not meat production, so that is a bit outside my area, but I don't see how that is any different than business as usual for companies. Which doesn't excuse it of course, but it isn't entirely unexpected, and it isn't grounds to ignore what people who study it say about it's safety, namely that it is.
More than half a world refuses to import beef/diary from US because of that, but that's simply crazy because "no danger are known", isn't it?
It isn't crazy at all actually. I don't know how if it works the same in hormone treated meat (again, I'm a plant person), but I know with genetically modified crops they are rejected by many countries for a very good (sorta) reason that really has nothing to do with safety: trade protectionism. A lot of countries, particularly in Europe, don't want to open their farms up to global market forces because they'd be out competed. Here in the US for instance we are really good at producing corn, and could totally kill Europe's native corn industry. Now, WTO laws forbid protectionism, but if you forbid import of something under the guise of regulatory issues, like say a ban on genetic engineering, they you're free to keep your market protected. I was unaware of US beef exports being banned as a result of rBGH (I thought if anything it was related to BSE), but if that is indeed the case I would not be surprised. Food gets pretty political.
I know the example is not in the GMO topic, but anyway..., can I really trust Monsanto when saying "no known danger"?
No. Don't trust Monsanto. Trust everyone else. Among plant biologists, the consensus on GMOs on pretty darned favorable. Not trusting companies is not only understandable, it's pretty smart I'd say. But doubting them so much that you reject mountains of independent science, well, not so much. And don't forget that Monsanto doesn't own genetic engineering. If you really dig into it, you'll find that pretty much every university in the world, from the US to Brazil to Italy to Iran to Nigeria to China to New Zealand is doing genetic engineering. Don't trust Monsanto, trust them.
1. GMOs create monocultures which could severely damage society by allowing for a majority of crop types to be of one kind. If something comes along which the plants have no resistance to and wipes out the majority of crops sold on the planet we're fucked.
That one doesn't even make sense. Genetic engineering is a way of improving a plant. Biodiversity is what you grow. What you're saying is like saying conventional breeding creates monoculture because there are more potatoes than oca, more apples than jujubes, more mangoes than lychees, more wheat than tef, more lettuce than chaya, more numeg than rosita de cacao, ect ect ect. There are hundreds of crops that people like you don't know or care about. Genetic engineering didn't banish them, they were out of the picture when it got here. Same way with interspecies biodiversity. People have been eroding that for a long time, just look at non-GMO crops like tomatoes. Whan was the last time you went to the store and saw an Ananas Noire, White Tomesol, Kellogg's Breakfast, Carbon, Green Moldovian, or Huge Yellow Oxhart tomato? You didn't, and they're not even genetically modified. In fact, I'd wager to gues you don't even know what biodiversity is, know nothing of the huge number of biodiverse crops out there. and that's just some talking point you heard. And quite frankly, as a huge proponent of biodiversity myself, I'd appreciate if people like you would shut the hell up and stop making the rest of us look like scientifically illiterate morons. Those things I listed above? That's the COMMON stuff. If you had to look them up, and lets face it, you did, you don't have much business talking about it.
2. GMOs are patented. When the GMOs seed and spread to fields which do not have GMOs the owner of the patent can sue the farmer for using a crop which they own the patent for even though it's a derivative created by natural processes. Those lawsuits are detrimental to the farmers and provide the creators of the GMO with unending amounts of cash because everyone has to use their products.
Congratulations, you've discovered the Plant Patent. Welcome to 1930. Is it right? Maybe, maybe not, but either way, I know of nothing stopping anyone from patenting a naturally occurring mutant gene, and furthermore, that's business, not science, so has no relevance to the merits of GMOs. That's like saying that the possibility of being sued for downloading something is relevant to the artistic merit of a work of music, film, or literature.
3. GMOs require more and more pesticides because they're built to only germinate when the pesticide is used. I don't care if you're hippy or not, pesticides are just as bad as the hormones and antibiotics we're finding.
Wow, when did that happen. Funny, all the time I've studied GMOs, the lectures I've gone to, I've never heard about that one. Sounds like a combination of bullshit and you not knowing what you're talking about. First, you're confusing herbicide and pesticide (well, insecticide), which means your opinions on agriculture are as valid as a the medical opinion of guy who uses liver and kidneys interchangeably. There are GMO crops that produce their own pesticides, and these have actually REDUCE the use of pesticides. This is a fact supported by pretty much every agriculturist on the planet, if you disagree with it, you are wrong, and no, some link to Greenpeace is not a valid rebuttal. There are also those that resist herbicides, meaning you can kill weeds without tilling. Look up no-till agriculture. It's a good thing. And what are you going on about when you talk of getting them to germinate? GMOs germinate just fine. Perhaps you're thinking of the fact that farmers don't save seed? Yeah, that's hybrid seed for you. Look up Punnett Square and heterosis and try to figure that one out for yourself. Joking. Farmers don't save that seed
Bullshit. Corn, cotton, canola, soybean, sugar beet, alfalfa, papaya, summer squash. If you eat them, assume their GMO. It takes, what, five seconds on Google. I assume you're speaking of mandatory labeling, in which case, what point does that serve? To alarm, not inform, that's what. You think someone should slap a warning label on everything anyone's unconformable with? What about non-Kosher food, mandatory labeling? Haram food, that too? What if they want to know if the plant that produced their food was tissue cultured? Produced by using mutagens? What if I want to know the exact variety of the berries used in my cereal, or the line of hybrid wheat used in bread? Should that be labeled too? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There's nothing wrong with GMOs, and as such, no one has moral or legal grounds for labeling. You want to label something as non-GMO? Fine. But don't make the rest of us pay for your scientific illiteracy.
The ironic thing is that there are tons of non-corporate GMOs out there, but only one (the Rainbow papaya created by the University of Hawaii and Cornell) made it to market. Why? Because the anti-GMO people protested and protested and demanded that regulation be so strict that only multi-million dollar companies can take the time and money to just through the FDA/USDA/EPA's hoops. As a result, horticultural crops (fruits, vegetables, nuts, and herbs & spices) simply don't have the backing to make it to market (and it isn't like people weren't already cutting hort funding to begin with anyway, shortsighted bastards). Then these same people have the huevos to complain about Monsanto and monopoly (which of course ignores Syngentia, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agrosciences, and Pioneer Hi-Bred) and monoculture! Beyond that, there has been so much fearmongering by anti-GMO assholes like Greenpeace that for a lot of crops there's so much fear of consumer rejection (ooh, I don't want DNA in my food!) that it's mostly agronomic crops like corn, soybean, canola, cotton, sugarbeet, and alfalfa, that are almost always processed and not seen in their original form, that are genetically modified, probably so that people won't really notice it much. And note that these are all huge chunks of the farming industry. Only one thing that isn't such a huge crop is currently GMO: virus resistant summer squash.
About Monsanto, see, I have this theory. Anti-GMO people (not saying you're anti-GMO, just in general) love to rag on Monsanto as much as possible, that way, if any pro-GMO people like myself correct them, we're seen as defending the big evil company, and are therefore shills. With that having been said, I really don't think the companies creating GMOs are all that evil. They're not benevolent, far from it, they're out to make money, end of story, just like car, banking, retail, pharma, tech, and entertainment companies. But, for all the flaws of companies like, say, Merck, Disney, or Wal-Mart, I'd hesitate to call them entirely evil, because they do do some good. Think of it like how you'd think of Merck and vaccines; sure, Merck may be assholes, but their products still keep measles from coming back. Believe it or not, farmers actually like them. They like their products, they've seen the decrease in pesticide and soil erosion GMOs have brought, and they want to keep using them In countries like the Philipines, India, and South Africa, where they don't always have pesticides, things like Bt cotton and corn are liked so much by some farmers that in India they actually have had problems with farmers stealing seed from scientific test plots. And while it is true that Monsanto is not nearly as open with their data as they should be, they have never hid any dangers under the rug, mostly because there are no known dangers. If there was truly a health problem with a particular transgenic crop, odds are it wouldn't take too long for someone to run a protein blot and find something. And then there's the issue with them suing over pollen drift, that's a bit iffy too (although it must be said that those they do sue they find them because they're buying their herbicide in large quantities, so those guys do indeed know full well what they're doing). I hate having to defend Monsanto sometimes, because anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the science behind GMOs gets called a paid shill anyway, but that's the truth.
People probably are uncomfortable with GMOs, how they were rushed to market back when they first came out, and Monsanto and all that, but do keep in mind that these same people almost inevitably protest every other GMO. Golden Rice, HoneySweet plum, Enviropig, BioCassava, Super Sorghum, and every unamed university made GMO of all kinds that I don't care to list. Most anti-GMO people are simply denialists, no different than any other unscientific denialist group. If you're truly against Monsanto, not an entire branch of science, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that at all, but you are a minority.
Whoa, back up there. Inhumane conditions are bad, that much is clear, and I totally agree that antibiotics are often abused, but factory farm != inhumane conditions Factory farming typically refers to CAFOs, and that has nothing do do with how the animals are raised, but actually just the number. It gets a bad rap, but no small amount of them are just family farms (even some of the big ones) that do, indeed, treat their animals fairly well. It's like the spinach E. coli outbreak; one jackass lets his cattle get too close to the irrigation source and the entire spinach industry takes a hit over it. Yeah, there is animal cruelty, a lot of it, but I don't think it's the norm, so don't blame factory farms in general any more than you should attack free range farming because some organic idiots treat treat sick animals with homeopathy (no medicine could also be considered inhumane). Factory farms are mostly about efficiency, and that is no vice, nor in producing less output a virtue. Sorry, they're not. You want to pay more for something that uses more land, fine my me, but unless every so-called factory farm is abusing their animals (hint, they're not) I'll take efficient and cheap thank you. Before you paint everyone with that big brush, maybe you should learn something about agriculture beyond some bullshit movie with all the credibility of Loose Change. That you are concerned about hormones and GMOs indicates to me that such films are your primary source of information and you know very little about modern agriculture and agricultural technology.
Especially GMOs, jeez, can we as a society get over that one? It's just a way of improving a plant, it isn't Frankenstein or Jurassic Park or Splice or whatever fairy tale people are believing over science today, and contrary to the perpetual moaning of unscientific denialists like Greenpeace, they are actually a gain for the environment (Bt GMOs reduce pesticide use and Ht GMOs prevent fertilizer runoff, reduces soil erosion and promotes carbon sequestering via no/low-till ag) and not dangerous to humans. And we can talk about the politics of Monsanto all day long, but that is not relevant to the benefits GMOs provide.or mean GMOs are dangerous any more than Merck or Pfizer's unethical decisions mean that vaccines cause autism.
And watching Food Inc. to get different perspectives on agriculture is like listening to Michael Behe to get different viewpoints on evolution. Different points of view are good, but sometimes they're just wrong. That movie made some good points, but was mostly foodie nonsense and bogus FUD. What's amazing is that all those foodie idiots lapped that up, but when a real agriculturalist talks about real farming then they just go into dismiss it. I truly love that society in developed nations runs so smoothly that we don't need to produce our own food, that labor is nicely divided that people like people can go on about something they've never done or been involved with, but people really should know a bit more about where their food comes from, how it's produced, and why farmers do it that way so that they won't go into panic mode every time some bored art history major throws together a few film clips.
That's hippie agriculture in a nutshell. X has flaws, therefore Y is perfect, and they never stop to consider that maybe X has benefits despite its flaws or that maybe Y is even worse.
I think the next thing that will bite us in the ass will be GMOs and diet garbage,
Ah man, I was about to mod you up until that part. I'm the AC three posts up, posted like so I could still mod. I've got to say, you're wrong on that one. I've made GMO plants, it's not like what you see in the popular media. Yes Monsanto is a jackass, yes Archer Daniels Midland and their HFCS subsidies are contributing to a crap load of health problems, yes it's nuts that we subsidize that stuff, and no I don't endorse either, but that has nothing to do with genetic modifications. Solid scientific literature that has gained any sort of scientific acceptance that claims to have found that GE crops are any worse than the non-GE ones is pretty sparse, which is a polite way of saying that there's no evidence whatsoever to indicate that GMO crops are unhealthy, a few poor crank studies aside (and lets face it, there are also reports out there claiming the homeopathy works...a few discredited papers does not a strong case make).
Way too many people assume food comes from a box or a can or a bag, assume that fresh produce is merely a novelty, have no interest in what they're putting into their bodies, don't want to do their own cooking, and those are problems (and I'm as guilty as anyone sometimes), and there are tons of other problems out there with nutrition in this country, but moving a few molecules around in a lab isn't one of them. Maybe things would be better if more people grew their own vegetables or signed up of CSAs or whatever. But don't blame any of the stuff on us. If anything, if people would accept genetic engineering, maybe all the projects that improve nutrient dense horticultural crops (fruits & veges) that never make it past the BS regulatory hurdles could finally get approved and get out there and maybe help things.
Ah, it happens. Hope I didn't sound too snappy either...I've been called evil Monsatan shill so many times that civility is no longer always my first reaction (I gotta work on that).
Anyway, I get where people are coming from when they talk of the issue of saving seed. It's more than just the terminator genes, which by the way were never released after the public backlash. The point of terminator genes was actually to stop transgene spread, not stop seed saving (although, from Monsanto's point of view, don't think they forgot about that little perk) which was a big public fear at the time, still is, so Monsanto developed terminator genes and got an even bigger backlash. The reason farmers of GMO seed don't save (besides the contracts they must sign) is actually an issue that goes back to the 20's. Ideally, farmers would save seed from their harvest year after year and never need to buy any more. The problem here is that there's a reason why most farmers don't. Most use hybrid seed which, even though you need to keep buying it, is better. It's hardier and more productive, even though the second generation has genetic instability that make it less desirable for saving seed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the value of stable crops, like open pollinated/heirloom varieties, should be neglected, but at the same time, it isn't so simple as companies taking advantage of people by making them buy seed every year. A lot of gains have come from hybrid seed over the past century, and in the case of developing countries, I think they should have access to the same things that developed countries used to get their food security. Ideally of course they would be producing their own hybrid seed and not dependent on a foreign company though. One really exciting technology breakthrough is apomixis seeds. Basically, some people are working on making a plant that can make seed genetically identical to itself. This could be huge because then you would have the benefits of hybrid vigor and the ability to save seed. You can bet Monsanto won't invest in anything like that though which is why we need more public investment in (and public support for) genetic engineering.
As for any Monsanto rice, I can't say I'm familiar with that. I'm sure they do sell rice seed given that they have a huge market share of the seed industry, but I would assume they sell more than just that variety. There is no GMO rice on the market right now (although China and Iran have each developed their own home grown Bt rice IIRC), and I don't recall hearing Monsanto working on any rice projects, although given how corporations act in secrecy that doesn't really mean much. And I can get worrying about herbicide misuse in developing nations, heck, there are misuses of that stuff even in developed nations. I heard a story once about a guy in Central America, I forget the exact country, who used agricultural pesticides as personal bug repellent. He sprayed himself regularly. Then he died. It's hard to say that it won't be misused. I think working around that, without telling other people what technology they are and are not responsible enough to have (so-called technological imperialism), is an issue.
But yeah, I do agree with you that we should make sure profit motives don't screw things up. Genetic engineering companies are a lot like the pharma companies. You shouldn't trust them, but at the same their products do work (generally) and can serve a useful purpose. But I would much rather see public funds being used. I personally think we could solve a lot of problems for everyone if we used biotechnology techniques on biodiverse crops. Taking the best of what is already there (and there is a lot out there that most people have never even heard of), learning the applications they could have, and basically upgrading them. That could be huge, and it baffles me that there is no GMO prickly pear or chaya or ensete or safou or marula, heck, I don
Right now most countries refuse American Corn and wheat unless it has been ground up int a meal or flour. Why? They can get around WTO laws by claiming they don't want GMOs when in reality what they want is goold old fashioned protectionism.
Fixed that for you.
Monsanto has sued most USA farmers out of existence that dared to plant a non Monsanto crop by claiming IP infringement when a neighbor crop cross pollinates theirs.
Citation needed. The only farmers I've heard of them suing are the ones who knowingly attempted to get the transgenes. Not that I'm saying that's right, but that is a far cry from your claim.
and IF you dare to own a seed cleaner and keep part of your crop as seed, they will go after you and bankrupt you.
You should read up on contract law. And heterosis.
When you must buy closed source seed annually instead of saving and reusing open source seed.
Heterosis. Your argument is invalid. It's what feeds you. It's what others need. Did you ever stop to consider that maybe there is a reason farmers in developed nations choose to use hybrid lines? Did you ever consider that maybe farmers did a cost benefit analysis and found that they are better off buying seed every year? And no, that does not mean ignoring locally adapted genotypes. That's a false dilemma.
GMO seeds do not require modern farming techniques. Only the herbicide tolerant ones require additional input. Bt corn, Golden Rice, BioCassava, Super Sorghum, amino acid fortified corn, BXW resistant bananas, none of those GMOs require, by design, modern farming techniques. There are even some projects, like Cornells, Bt eggplant project, that seeks to modify local varieties and teach the farmers to save and improve that seed. Quite spreading misinformation about a topic you clearly do not understand.
I wasn't trying to disagree with you or imply you are one of the anti-GMO guys. My bad, guess I shouldn't have churned that post out so fast, I can see where you'd get that now. I was trying to agree actually. And I do agree with everything you said about Monsanto. I would have no problem with them getting hit with a long overdue antitrust claim, and some of their lawsuits are absolute BS. It's just that what they sell really does work, which leaves those of us involved in genetic engineering in the awkward position of having to defend them when people knock glyphosphate tolerant crops and make them out to be this horrible thing. I agree what you say about monoculture too...most people would be baffled by the number of crops out there that we just don't use. That can go nowhere good.
What does Monsanto have to do with anything? They no more own science than McDonalds owns cooking. What about Rainbow papaya and HoneySweet plum, which are resistant to viruses, amino acid fortified corn, Golden Rice, BioCassva, virus resistant grape rootstocks from France, virus resistant potatoes from the UK, iron enriched lettuce, hypoalergenic peanuts, non-addictive tobacco, antioxident enriched tomatoes, ripening delayed rot resistant tomatoes, insect resistant corn from China, insect resistant corn from Iran, non-browning apples, ect. ect. ect.? Hate on Monsanto all you want, but leave genetic engineering out of it. Look at it this way: vaccines have stopped millions of deaths, but Merck is pretty nasty, so should we stop vaccinating? Should a technology be judged based on a company's actions? No, that's dumb. Fact is, GMOs are not a silver bullet to the world's hunger problems, no technical solution is, but if you think that genetically improving a plant can't help, that if nitrogen use efficiency traits or drought resistance traits can't ease the problems, then you must be pretty clueless. Look at the Rainbow papaya as a case study...before the GMO papaya was introduced to Hawaii, the papaya ringspot virus was eradicating the crop. After the GMO, the disease disappeared, production returned to normal. It works and it works well, that's a fact, and it should be used, and the fear and rejection and over-regulation of it is unwarranted. Sure, Monsanto can be an ass, but that's no reason not to let someone use this technology.
And by the way, those non-Monsanto GMOs I mentioned...yeah, the anti-GMO people are against those too. The grape rootstocks being developed by the French government, for example, aren't being developed anymore because they were all burnt down in the night by science hating anti-GE arsonists. People who claim they're 'not anti science but anti-Monsanto' are usually full of crap because they're also against things like Rainbow papaya (made by a university), HoneySweet plum (made by the USDA), Arctic apple (made by a small company), and Golden Rice (made by a charity NGO). You can't claim to be against big corporation GMOs when you're also against those from universities, governments, small companies, and NGOs. Who else does that leave?
Slashdot Mirror
I've got no problem with that. I'm in academics. I'm actually just a lowly student at a land grant university, no one important, although I have discussed this topic at length with people who are, predominantly someone who once made the front page of the most prestigious biology journal (which is to say, someone very important and very knowledgeable), so while I consider myself an far from an expert, I base my points on what I have learned from people who are experts in plant biology/molecular biology/genetics/agriculture/ect., and I do have experience, and a lot more knowledge & understanding of the science and related issues of genetically modified crops than most people.
Why was the person you were talking to concerned? I don't know. Most people that I've talked to aren't worried at all about that particular trait. It just seems really strange to me that the person you talked to would say something like that about both Bt and the regulatory process. Regulation is very strict (at least here in the US it is, and I'd assume the same is true of Australia, if not more so), and I really haven't seen any convincing evidence that the Bt protein is concerning. With cross pollination, well, that happens, however, with a bit of foresight I really don't think it's that big of a problem in light of all the outcrossing varieties of crops that are really easily cross pollinated that have managed to stay pure lines (as in not crossing with other lines, for example, there are hundreds of varieties of squash, like Red Kuri, Jarrahdale, and Galeux d'Eysines that have existed and been preserved as pure lines for hundreds of years). Seedsavers have been doing it for ages (and heirloom enthusiasts like myself continue to do it today), and just because there are now transgenes out there I don't see how that changes things much. Perhaps they were taking more of an issue with the fact that genes and plants can be patented. I, personally, don't have much of a problem with that, but I can respect the opinions of people who do, and I can understand good arguments against it, and I can see cutting back on the power those patents can grant a bit. I'm sure that as someone working in computers you've gone through enough third person troubleshooting to appreciate the difficulty of understanding something technical via someone who isn't quite as experienced in that area, but the legal/patent thing would be my guess anyway, and if that's the case they are far from alone even among experts in that concern, and although I do disagree, I would not call such a position loony at all. Australia you say? I wonder if they know Dr. Tribe at the University of Melboure.
And I hope I didn't come off as too snarky the first time. Many people are very ignorant on this subject, but very few will actually admit it; most just think farmers are stupid/evil and that seeing Jurassic Park or some silly documentary makes them as knowledgeable as all the agriculturalists, geneticists, ect who devote their lives to studying this stuff (Dunning-Kruger strikes again).
Oh gee, didn't see that one coming. No one's ever accused me of being an industry apologist. /sarcasm So, have you ever worked with GMOs? I have. Have you ever been in a molecular biology lab? I have. Have you ever even talked with a plant biologist? I have, quite frequently. Or are you just playing the same tired canard that every quack, crank, and denialist plays when they have no evidence to back their unscientific point yet refuse to consider that maybe they're wrong? Have you ever considered that maybe the reason I'm handwaving is because all the science is only on one side, and all the other side has is sloppy studies, non falsifiable musing, and a conspiracy, which you so nicely demonstrate with your shill gambit. Everything I've said is basic information that just about any plant biologist will tell you, not controversial at all among relevant experts. I hardly went into the details. And if you'd actually read what I wrote you'd see I covered that several times. Funny thing about stupid conspiracies is, they always attack some big company or something with over the top misinformation, so whenever you correct those lies for the sake of accuracy, you are then accused of working for them and dismissed. A great strategy for appealing to the scientifically illiterate.
But hey, if actually knowing what you're talking about makes one a manipulator, no wonder the world is in the state it's in. It's people like you who assume anyone who actually has education and experience is part of teh ebil conspiracy. Am I condescending? Maybe a little, and you know why? Because education won't work, people like you won't read the easily available texts on the subject, you won't listen to petty little things like facts and reason, or even basic logic. Cracking a damn science book is so hard for some people that I don't see many other options besides mockery. It worked for science based medicine, maybe it will work for science based agriculture, and speaking of which, people like you are the reason kids still die of measles.
Yeah, but kosher labels are voluntary. I've never seen anything specifically labeled as non-kosher, and producers shouldn't have to label things as such. I have no problem with people willingly choosing to label products about if they do or don't have GMOs. What I don't like is that some people want to force it on everyone else.
I don't know about that, I would be surprised if there was one that went through a decent approval process that later turned out to be dangerous. There have been some before, but I really don't think catching it is that big of an issue. Now, could one in a country with less developed regulation let one through? Maybe. Could someone develop one as intentionally dangerous? Unfortunately, that is also possible. If you have the right genes, equipment, enzymes, ect., people would be surprised at how easy it really is (I've made them before. It's nothing like what you see in the movies. It's a lot less flashy unfortunately). Maybe in the not too distant future there will be a DIY Biology community, and who knows what will come of that. Strictly speaking, it's possible, but I for one have a fair degree of confidence that someone will catch it before it is too late. If any problem does happen, it will probably be due to corporate greed, not unexpected science, which is why it really would be a good idea to step up public funding for these sort of things. Funny thing is, so many of the same anti-GMO people who complain about private corporate GMOs then turn around and complain that their tax dollars fund public research for university made GMOs!
You are right that it is progress. Not only can this make agricutlure more efficient, productive, and stable in developed countries, which is certainty great, but everyone should also know that there is something bigger here. By 2050 the population is expected to be 9 billion. That has significance. We will either need to make a few billion people disappear (not a very pleasant idea), increase our cultivated land (goodbye Amazon rainforests, Congo jungles, and Borneo cloudforests), or develop an ever increasing agricultural science and technology, including new input reducing methods, new improved chemical inputs, and new biotechnology. I read once (haven't confirmed if this is true) that if we still used the same farming techniques we used in the 50's we'd need an additional cultivated area the size of North America to feed everyone. We need to go forward. Sitting still is not an option.
Good to see that you and a few people other get it. Most clearly don't, and I think I just wasted six and a half hours banging out a dozen responses that aren't going to change anyone's mind anyway. It just baffles me that people who don't know anything about this subject, who don't even think out logical thoughts on it, still think they know more than everyone who actually studies it because they saw some jackass on a Youtube video. Bah, with the attitudes of the anti-GMO crowd I don't know why I even bother. No wonder so many biotech students get MBAs instead of working in the most misunderstood and hated field in science.
Labeling is a good thing. It lets us all make informed choices based on our personal preferences.
I know no one wants to hear this, but labeling isn't about personal preference. It is about providing important information. Personally, I'm a big variety freak, I like knowing what variety things are, but some things, like blueberries and blackberries, are almost never labeled with the variety, and as much as I'd like to know, I don't have the right to legally require that information of producers. Another example that comes to mind, once, a Muslim professor who taught a class I was taking couldn't buy some Gummi Worms because the gelatin didn't specify if it was from a cow or pig, and I'm sure he would love if there was a label informing him if the gummis were Halal or Haram, but again, as much preference as he might have for such a label, he does not have the right to force producers to accommodate him. Do we have the right to create a market for those thing, yes, and does another person also have the right to supply that market, yes, but to make everyone else react to our preferences, no. On the other hand some things, like the presence of peanuts or milk, should be labeled because that can present a health risk to some people. Things like trans-fats and hydrogenated oils should be labeled because we have ample scientific evidence suggesting they're dangerous (IMO they should be banned from food use but that's another topic). GMOs are much more like the first category, and you can't treat those two categories as equivalent, because they're just not. If there was a clear and present health danger coming from GMOs, then it would be a much different story, but (the typical pseudoscientific riffraff all controversial things attract aside) no approved GMO has ever been linked to a single human health concern. Ever. Over 2 trillion GMO meals consumed, no health problems. 0/2,000,000,000,000 is pretty good. And of course we can muse about those oft discuses never described hypothetical long term problems, but with no evidence to suggest they're real and no way to falsify the notion, that simply isn't even worth talking about. Like Stephen Gould once said, 'I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.' Same thing here.
So no, labels are not there for personal preference, but to deliver real, relevant information. How a plant was created is not relevant, and furthermore, all that would do is scare people. It would be like if someone required that bananas be labeled according to how much radiation they emitted. It is true that bananas are slightly radioactive, but there is no valid reason to label them as such. And yes, tracking each and every shipment of grain and soy and canola ext through all the processes they go through would be quite costly, and I for one would strongly prefer not to pay extra for something without a good science based reason.
I'm guessing you don't know much about this area, and the molecular biologist you spoke to was not a plant molecular biologist were they? First off, the pesticide commonly used in GMOs is the Bt protein, and that same protein has been used in organic farming for decades. It isn't new at all. And it is only active in alkaline environments (like the gut of an insect) where it binds to specific receptors in certain types of insects (which is why it affects cotton bollworm but not mirid), and if you've got an alkaline gut, GMOs are the least of your worries. And I don't know where you got that info about regulation, but these GMOs are very highly regulated, by the FDA , by the USDA, and by the EPA. It takes years and millions of dollars to get a GMO approved. It's actually fairly simple to make a GMO (once all the genes are identified and cut out ect), and yet, there's a reason why so few plants are genetically modified. Regulation. I would say if anything, it is too strict. Because really, you need to do more testing than necessary. I know this isn't a popular sentiment, but I'll say it anyway: if the only detectable difference between a GMO and the non-GMO counterpart it the expression of the transgene (or cisgene or anti-sense gene or whatever), that it is reasonable to believe that is the only difference. Otherwise you drift into invisible pink unicorn territory, basing your agreements on something that might be there but for which no proof of it's existence exists. Any molecular biologist worth their salt should know about all the protein detection tests there are nowadays. And the funny thing about cross pollination (which is the proper term, not contamination, thank you) is that we actually do have safeguards against that in the terminator technology...but everyone threw such a big temper tantrum over that one that no one uses it. Facepalm.
I'm not a person who generally subscribes to FUD
Sorry to tell you, but you just fell for it in both of those cases. The first one is kind of a wierd one. The person claiming to have linked GMOs to those things actually claimed to have linked glyphosate (not the GMO itself), an herbicide that some GMOs are resistant to, with, well, everything. This guy basically claimed that glyphosate somehow spontaniously created a fungal life form the size of a virus that caused pretty much every known disease in both animals and plants. Think about that for a few seconds. Spontanious generation, smallest eukaryote ever, ability to infect everything...if exprodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, then there better be something pretty good behind that one. But that guy hasn't released his data. He's getting his 15 minutes of fame, but no one can review his work. This hasn't stopped the anti-GMO people from trumpeting it as gospel, but from a scientific standpoint, his claims are meaningless.
As for the second one, like the first, that one was big news in the popular media, not so much among scientists. A few weeks ago I spoke with a fairly well known plant molecular biologist who had never even heard of that one. What should it tell you that something like that has made so little impact? Yeah, nothing good. The sources I read about that did review it, the French High Concil on Biotechnology, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and European Food Safety Authority didn't think too highly of it. Basically the study was some wierd statistics based on Monsanto's own data, and in the end they concluded that Monsanto's studies were insufficient to make any conclusions, while at the same time concluding based on the data that they were dangerous. Uh, what?
Basically, every time there's one of those 'GMOs gonna get you' stories out there, they never, at least that I know of, have much to them. The analogy I like to use is the vaccines-autism case. You are going to hear anti-vax nonsense for years to come, despite the fact that the science on it is very clear. To me, someone in plant science, this GMO thing is no different. You are going to hear GMOs associated with every health problem there is until the day you die. But if you look at it really good, there actually isn't much strong evidence to suggest that there is or will be and health problem with them. Of course I supposed it might happen, but without evidence to suggest that, you could make the same non-falsifiable statement about anything. And hey, if you really feel strongly about it that buying organic gives you peace of mind that whatever, that's cool to. But I would hope it isn't something you really lose any sleep over. I've heard of cases of mothers struggling to make ends meet, wondering if they should sacrifices even more to buy expensive non-GMO food, and that, I think, is just horrible, horrible that people (and by people I mean organic lobby groups like the Organic Consumer's Association) choose to use fear as a marketing tool. If you're that worried, call up the agricultural extension office of you're local land grant university. You really can't trust Monsanto, but those guys you can trust, and they're there to help you.
And I just realized I just replied to two of your posts on this. Oops.
The thing to understand with those is that, with anything controversial thing, there will be studies to back it. There's dozens of studies claiming to proven that homeopathy works, but no one takes homeopathy seriously because they were all crap. Here, those things come and go. Take not that they have never, not once, been able to gain any sort of scientific consensus. There's a reason for that. They've never even been able to describe how and why GMOs would be dangerous. Genetic engineering is a wide topic; if a viral resistance gene with one promoter and terminator sequence inserted by agrobactrium somehow did the same thing as a fungal resistance gene with a different promoter & terminator inserted by gene gun had the same affects, that'd be news indeed. But the the anti-GMO guys don't even talk about that stuff (probably because they know nothing of the technical aspects of genetic engineering), nor do they even make an attempt to describe what protein is the cause of these alleged health problems, and ultimately, without that, and in the face of so much that finds no health problems, I'm not impressed. No causative agent, weak and often highly criticized science, that doesn't sway me much. Sure, you could blame the Cry protein or the glyphosate but that says bugger all about every other GMO that they also attack. That people seem to think genetic engineering is all one thing really shows their level of experience with the topic.
I haven't heard of that first study, but considering that there is an abundance of evidence otherwise, I'm going to go with consensus here. As for the second link, that was nothing impressive. Some guy made a claim, never even released his data, and everyone lapped it up. Yes, the same people constantly complaining that the piles of research open to anyone with a journal subscription were somehow not transparent enough accepted this guys claim without a shred of data. The mind boggles. As for the third link, ha, PrisonPlanet. If those guys said the sky was blue I'd go outside in horror to see what color it really was. A conspiracy nutjob site isn't even worth investigating, sorry. I'm surprised you didn't link to the latest one, where some guys in Canada claimed to have found the Cry1Ab protein used in GMOs in fetal blood, despite the fact that the test they used can't even detect things at the level they found it at.
I'd be really interested in knowing just what that protein was or any additional details if you've got them. The only two proteins inserted into Monsanto's soybeans (presently, there would be an additional pair if they get the omega-3 soybeans approved) are the Cry proteins and EPSP synthase proteins, and I don't think I've ever heard anything about either of those being proven linked to any sort of problem (at least not commonly used Cry proteins anyway). Although, given that this was the same country to reject the Rainbow papaya produced by the University of Hawaii, perhaps the most benign GMO on the market today, it could very well be due to something similar to the European GMO situation, where GMOs are banned in theory because of safety questions, but in reality as a way to get around WTO protectionism laws. Given that Japan, like many other developed nations, loves it's ag subsidies, I would not be surprised in the least if that were the case.
A simple tl;dr would have sufficed. Here's what you do. Hold the button that says Ctrl, the press the button with the F. Then type in the word 'herbicide' in the little box that pops up. It will actually take you right to the part of my post where I talked about that! kthxbai
Huh? The rBGH related WTVT/Monsanto affair? With the stupefying end of it: FCC policy against falsification (of news) was not a "law, rule, or regulation"?
I confess, I'm in horticulture, not meat production, so that is a bit outside my area, but I don't see how that is any different than business as usual for companies. Which doesn't excuse it of course, but it isn't entirely unexpected, and it isn't grounds to ignore what people who study it say about it's safety, namely that it is.
More than half a world refuses to import beef/diary from US because of that, but that's simply crazy because "no danger are known", isn't it?
It isn't crazy at all actually. I don't know how if it works the same in hormone treated meat (again, I'm a plant person), but I know with genetically modified crops they are rejected by many countries for a very good (sorta) reason that really has nothing to do with safety: trade protectionism. A lot of countries, particularly in Europe, don't want to open their farms up to global market forces because they'd be out competed. Here in the US for instance we are really good at producing corn, and could totally kill Europe's native corn industry. Now, WTO laws forbid protectionism, but if you forbid import of something under the guise of regulatory issues, like say a ban on genetic engineering, they you're free to keep your market protected. I was unaware of US beef exports being banned as a result of rBGH (I thought if anything it was related to BSE), but if that is indeed the case I would not be surprised. Food gets pretty political.
I know the example is not in the GMO topic, but anyway..., can I really trust Monsanto when saying "no known danger"?
No. Don't trust Monsanto. Trust everyone else. Among plant biologists, the consensus on GMOs on pretty darned favorable. Not trusting companies is not only understandable, it's pretty smart I'd say. But doubting them so much that you reject mountains of independent science, well, not so much. And don't forget that Monsanto doesn't own genetic engineering. If you really dig into it, you'll find that pretty much every university in the world, from the US to Brazil to Italy to Iran to Nigeria to China to New Zealand is doing genetic engineering. Don't trust Monsanto, trust them.
1. GMOs create monocultures which could severely damage society by allowing for a majority of crop types to be of one kind. If something comes along which the plants have no resistance to and wipes out the majority of crops sold on the planet we're fucked.
That one doesn't even make sense. Genetic engineering is a way of improving a plant. Biodiversity is what you grow. What you're saying is like saying conventional breeding creates monoculture because there are more potatoes than oca, more apples than jujubes, more mangoes than lychees, more wheat than tef, more lettuce than chaya, more numeg than rosita de cacao, ect ect ect. There are hundreds of crops that people like you don't know or care about. Genetic engineering didn't banish them, they were out of the picture when it got here. Same way with interspecies biodiversity. People have been eroding that for a long time, just look at non-GMO crops like tomatoes. Whan was the last time you went to the store and saw an Ananas Noire, White Tomesol, Kellogg's Breakfast, Carbon, Green Moldovian, or Huge Yellow Oxhart tomato? You didn't, and they're not even genetically modified. In fact, I'd wager to gues you don't even know what biodiversity is, know nothing of the huge number of biodiverse crops out there. and that's just some talking point you heard. And quite frankly, as a huge proponent of biodiversity myself, I'd appreciate if people like you would shut the hell up and stop making the rest of us look like scientifically illiterate morons. Those things I listed above? That's the COMMON stuff. If you had to look them up, and lets face it, you did, you don't have much business talking about it.
2. GMOs are patented. When the GMOs seed and spread to fields which do not have GMOs the owner of the patent can sue the farmer for using a crop which they own the patent for even though it's a derivative created by natural processes. Those lawsuits are detrimental to the farmers and provide the creators of the GMO with unending amounts of cash because everyone has to use their products.
Congratulations, you've discovered the Plant Patent. Welcome to 1930. Is it right? Maybe, maybe not, but either way, I know of nothing stopping anyone from patenting a naturally occurring mutant gene, and furthermore, that's business, not science, so has no relevance to the merits of GMOs. That's like saying that the possibility of being sued for downloading something is relevant to the artistic merit of a work of music, film, or literature.
3. GMOs require more and more pesticides because they're built to only germinate when the pesticide is used. I don't care if you're hippy or not, pesticides are just as bad as the hormones and antibiotics we're finding.
Wow, when did that happen. Funny, all the time I've studied GMOs, the lectures I've gone to, I've never heard about that one. Sounds like a combination of bullshit and you not knowing what you're talking about. First, you're confusing herbicide and pesticide (well, insecticide), which means your opinions on agriculture are as valid as a the medical opinion of guy who uses liver and kidneys interchangeably. There are GMO crops that produce their own pesticides, and these have actually REDUCE the use of pesticides. This is a fact supported by pretty much every agriculturist on the planet, if you disagree with it, you are wrong, and no, some link to Greenpeace is not a valid rebuttal. There are also those that resist herbicides, meaning you can kill weeds without tilling. Look up no-till agriculture. It's a good thing. And what are you going on about when you talk of getting them to germinate? GMOs germinate just fine. Perhaps you're thinking of the fact that farmers don't save seed? Yeah, that's hybrid seed for you. Look up Punnett Square and heterosis and try to figure that one out for yourself. Joking. Farmers don't save that seed
Bullshit. Corn, cotton, canola, soybean, sugar beet, alfalfa, papaya, summer squash. If you eat them, assume their GMO. It takes, what, five seconds on Google. I assume you're speaking of mandatory labeling, in which case, what point does that serve? To alarm, not inform, that's what. You think someone should slap a warning label on everything anyone's unconformable with? What about non-Kosher food, mandatory labeling? Haram food, that too? What if they want to know if the plant that produced their food was tissue cultured? Produced by using mutagens? What if I want to know the exact variety of the berries used in my cereal, or the line of hybrid wheat used in bread? Should that be labeled too? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There's nothing wrong with GMOs, and as such, no one has moral or legal grounds for labeling. You want to label something as non-GMO? Fine. But don't make the rest of us pay for your scientific illiteracy.
The ironic thing is that there are tons of non-corporate GMOs out there, but only one (the Rainbow papaya created by the University of Hawaii and Cornell) made it to market. Why? Because the anti-GMO people protested and protested and demanded that regulation be so strict that only multi-million dollar companies can take the time and money to just through the FDA/USDA/EPA's hoops. As a result, horticultural crops (fruits, vegetables, nuts, and herbs & spices) simply don't have the backing to make it to market (and it isn't like people weren't already cutting hort funding to begin with anyway, shortsighted bastards). Then these same people have the huevos to complain about Monsanto and monopoly (which of course ignores Syngentia, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agrosciences, and Pioneer Hi-Bred) and monoculture! Beyond that, there has been so much fearmongering by anti-GMO assholes like Greenpeace that for a lot of crops there's so much fear of consumer rejection (ooh, I don't want DNA in my food!) that it's mostly agronomic crops like corn, soybean, canola, cotton, sugarbeet, and alfalfa, that are almost always processed and not seen in their original form, that are genetically modified, probably so that people won't really notice it much. And note that these are all huge chunks of the farming industry. Only one thing that isn't such a huge crop is currently GMO: virus resistant summer squash.
About Monsanto, see, I have this theory. Anti-GMO people (not saying you're anti-GMO, just in general) love to rag on Monsanto as much as possible, that way, if any pro-GMO people like myself correct them, we're seen as defending the big evil company, and are therefore shills. With that having been said, I really don't think the companies creating GMOs are all that evil. They're not benevolent, far from it, they're out to make money, end of story, just like car, banking, retail, pharma, tech, and entertainment companies. But, for all the flaws of companies like, say, Merck, Disney, or Wal-Mart, I'd hesitate to call them entirely evil, because they do do some good. Think of it like how you'd think of Merck and vaccines; sure, Merck may be assholes, but their products still keep measles from coming back. Believe it or not, farmers actually like them. They like their products, they've seen the decrease in pesticide and soil erosion GMOs have brought, and they want to keep using them In countries like the Philipines, India, and South Africa, where they don't always have pesticides, things like Bt cotton and corn are liked so much by some farmers that in India they actually have had problems with farmers stealing seed from scientific test plots. And while it is true that Monsanto is not nearly as open with their data as they should be, they have never hid any dangers under the rug, mostly because there are no known dangers. If there was truly a health problem with a particular transgenic crop, odds are it wouldn't take too long for someone to run a protein blot and find something. And then there's the issue with them suing over pollen drift, that's a bit iffy too (although it must be said that those they do sue they find them because they're buying their herbicide in large quantities, so those guys do indeed know full well what they're doing). I hate having to defend Monsanto sometimes, because anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the science behind GMOs gets called a paid shill anyway, but that's the truth.
People probably are uncomfortable with GMOs, how they were rushed to market back when they first came out, and Monsanto and all that, but do keep in mind that these same people almost inevitably protest every other GMO. Golden Rice, HoneySweet plum, Enviropig, BioCassava, Super Sorghum, and every unamed university made GMO of all kinds that I don't care to list. Most anti-GMO people are simply denialists, no different than any other unscientific denialist group. If you're truly against Monsanto, not an entire branch of science, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that at all, but you are a minority.
Whoa, back up there. Inhumane conditions are bad, that much is clear, and I totally agree that antibiotics are often abused, but factory farm != inhumane conditions Factory farming typically refers to CAFOs, and that has nothing do do with how the animals are raised, but actually just the number. It gets a bad rap, but no small amount of them are just family farms (even some of the big ones) that do, indeed, treat their animals fairly well. It's like the spinach E. coli outbreak; one jackass lets his cattle get too close to the irrigation source and the entire spinach industry takes a hit over it. Yeah, there is animal cruelty, a lot of it, but I don't think it's the norm, so don't blame factory farms in general any more than you should attack free range farming because some organic idiots treat treat sick animals with homeopathy (no medicine could also be considered inhumane). Factory farms are mostly about efficiency, and that is no vice, nor in producing less output a virtue. Sorry, they're not. You want to pay more for something that uses more land, fine my me, but unless every so-called factory farm is abusing their animals (hint, they're not) I'll take efficient and cheap thank you. Before you paint everyone with that big brush, maybe you should learn something about agriculture beyond some bullshit movie with all the credibility of Loose Change. That you are concerned about hormones and GMOs indicates to me that such films are your primary source of information and you know very little about modern agriculture and agricultural technology.
Especially GMOs, jeez, can we as a society get over that one? It's just a way of improving a plant, it isn't Frankenstein or Jurassic Park or Splice or whatever fairy tale people are believing over science today, and contrary to the perpetual moaning of unscientific denialists like Greenpeace, they are actually a gain for the environment (Bt GMOs reduce pesticide use and Ht GMOs prevent fertilizer runoff, reduces soil erosion and promotes carbon sequestering via no/low-till ag) and not dangerous to humans. And we can talk about the politics of Monsanto all day long, but that is not relevant to the benefits GMOs provide.or mean GMOs are dangerous any more than Merck or Pfizer's unethical decisions mean that vaccines cause autism.
And watching Food Inc. to get different perspectives on agriculture is like listening to Michael Behe to get different viewpoints on evolution. Different points of view are good, but sometimes they're just wrong. That movie made some good points, but was mostly foodie nonsense and bogus FUD. What's amazing is that all those foodie idiots lapped that up, but when a real agriculturalist talks about real farming then they just go into dismiss it. I truly love that society in developed nations runs so smoothly that we don't need to produce our own food, that labor is nicely divided that people like people can go on about something they've never done or been involved with, but people really should know a bit more about where their food comes from, how it's produced, and why farmers do it that way so that they won't go into panic mode every time some bored art history major throws together a few film clips.
That's hippie agriculture in a nutshell. X has flaws, therefore Y is perfect, and they never stop to consider that maybe X has benefits despite its flaws or that maybe Y is even worse.
I think the next thing that will bite us in the ass will be GMOs and diet garbage,
Ah man, I was about to mod you up until that part. I'm the AC three posts up, posted like so I could still mod. I've got to say, you're wrong on that one. I've made GMO plants, it's not like what you see in the popular media. Yes Monsanto is a jackass, yes Archer Daniels Midland and their HFCS subsidies are contributing to a crap load of health problems, yes it's nuts that we subsidize that stuff, and no I don't endorse either, but that has nothing to do with genetic modifications. Solid scientific literature that has gained any sort of scientific acceptance that claims to have found that GE crops are any worse than the non-GE ones is pretty sparse, which is a polite way of saying that there's no evidence whatsoever to indicate that GMO crops are unhealthy, a few poor crank studies aside (and lets face it, there are also reports out there claiming the homeopathy works...a few discredited papers does not a strong case make).
Way too many people assume food comes from a box or a can or a bag, assume that fresh produce is merely a novelty, have no interest in what they're putting into their bodies, don't want to do their own cooking, and those are problems (and I'm as guilty as anyone sometimes), and there are tons of other problems out there with nutrition in this country, but moving a few molecules around in a lab isn't one of them. Maybe things would be better if more people grew their own vegetables or signed up of CSAs or whatever. But don't blame any of the stuff on us. If anything, if people would accept genetic engineering, maybe all the projects that improve nutrient dense horticultural crops (fruits & veges) that never make it past the BS regulatory hurdles could finally get approved and get out there and maybe help things.
Ah, it happens. Hope I didn't sound too snappy either...I've been called evil Monsatan shill so many times that civility is no longer always my first reaction (I gotta work on that).
Anyway, I get where people are coming from when they talk of the issue of saving seed. It's more than just the terminator genes, which by the way were never released after the public backlash. The point of terminator genes was actually to stop transgene spread, not stop seed saving (although, from Monsanto's point of view, don't think they forgot about that little perk) which was a big public fear at the time, still is, so Monsanto developed terminator genes and got an even bigger backlash. The reason farmers of GMO seed don't save (besides the contracts they must sign) is actually an issue that goes back to the 20's. Ideally, farmers would save seed from their harvest year after year and never need to buy any more. The problem here is that there's a reason why most farmers don't. Most use hybrid seed which, even though you need to keep buying it, is better. It's hardier and more productive, even though the second generation has genetic instability that make it less desirable for saving seed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the value of stable crops, like open pollinated/heirloom varieties, should be neglected, but at the same time, it isn't so simple as companies taking advantage of people by making them buy seed every year. A lot of gains have come from hybrid seed over the past century, and in the case of developing countries, I think they should have access to the same things that developed countries used to get their food security. Ideally of course they would be producing their own hybrid seed and not dependent on a foreign company though. One really exciting technology breakthrough is apomixis seeds. Basically, some people are working on making a plant that can make seed genetically identical to itself. This could be huge because then you would have the benefits of hybrid vigor and the ability to save seed. You can bet Monsanto won't invest in anything like that though which is why we need more public investment in (and public support for) genetic engineering.
As for any Monsanto rice, I can't say I'm familiar with that. I'm sure they do sell rice seed given that they have a huge market share of the seed industry, but I would assume they sell more than just that variety. There is no GMO rice on the market right now (although China and Iran have each developed their own home grown Bt rice IIRC), and I don't recall hearing Monsanto working on any rice projects, although given how corporations act in secrecy that doesn't really mean much. And I can get worrying about herbicide misuse in developing nations, heck, there are misuses of that stuff even in developed nations. I heard a story once about a guy in Central America, I forget the exact country, who used agricultural pesticides as personal bug repellent. He sprayed himself regularly. Then he died. It's hard to say that it won't be misused. I think working around that, without telling other people what technology they are and are not responsible enough to have (so-called technological imperialism), is an issue.
But yeah, I do agree with you that we should make sure profit motives don't screw things up. Genetic engineering companies are a lot like the pharma companies. You shouldn't trust them, but at the same their products do work (generally) and can serve a useful purpose. But I would much rather see public funds being used. I personally think we could solve a lot of problems for everyone if we used biotechnology techniques on biodiverse crops. Taking the best of what is already there (and there is a lot out there that most people have never even heard of), learning the applications they could have, and basically upgrading them. That could be huge, and it baffles me that there is no GMO prickly pear or chaya or ensete or safou or marula, heck, I don
Right now most countries refuse American Corn and wheat unless it has been ground up int a meal or flour. Why? They can get around WTO laws by claiming they don't want GMOs when in reality what they want is goold old fashioned protectionism.
Fixed that for you.
Monsanto has sued most USA farmers out of existence that dared to plant a non Monsanto crop by claiming IP infringement when a neighbor crop cross pollinates theirs.
Citation needed. The only farmers I've heard of them suing are the ones who knowingly attempted to get the transgenes. Not that I'm saying that's right, but that is a far cry from your claim.
and IF you dare to own a seed cleaner and keep part of your crop as seed, they will go after you and bankrupt you.
You should read up on contract law. And heterosis.
Grist, now there's a reputable source. I've seen so much crap on that site their servers should be considered an agricultural solution.
When you must buy closed source seed annually instead of saving and reusing open source seed.
Heterosis. Your argument is invalid. It's what feeds you. It's what others need. Did you ever stop to consider that maybe there is a reason farmers in developed nations choose to use hybrid lines? Did you ever consider that maybe farmers did a cost benefit analysis and found that they are better off buying seed every year? And no, that does not mean ignoring locally adapted genotypes. That's a false dilemma.
GMO seeds do not require modern farming techniques. Only the herbicide tolerant ones require additional input. Bt corn, Golden Rice, BioCassava, Super Sorghum, amino acid fortified corn, BXW resistant bananas, none of those GMOs require, by design, modern farming techniques. There are even some projects, like Cornells, Bt eggplant project, that seeks to modify local varieties and teach the farmers to save and improve that seed. Quite spreading misinformation about a topic you clearly do not understand.
I wasn't trying to disagree with you or imply you are one of the anti-GMO guys. My bad, guess I shouldn't have churned that post out so fast, I can see where you'd get that now. I was trying to agree actually. And I do agree with everything you said about Monsanto. I would have no problem with them getting hit with a long overdue antitrust claim, and some of their lawsuits are absolute BS. It's just that what they sell really does work, which leaves those of us involved in genetic engineering in the awkward position of having to defend them when people knock glyphosphate tolerant crops and make them out to be this horrible thing. I agree what you say about monoculture too...most people would be baffled by the number of crops out there that we just don't use. That can go nowhere good.
What does Monsanto have to do with anything? They no more own science than McDonalds owns cooking. What about Rainbow papaya and HoneySweet plum, which are resistant to viruses, amino acid fortified corn, Golden Rice, BioCassva, virus resistant grape rootstocks from France, virus resistant potatoes from the UK, iron enriched lettuce, hypoalergenic peanuts, non-addictive tobacco, antioxident enriched tomatoes, ripening delayed rot resistant tomatoes, insect resistant corn from China, insect resistant corn from Iran, non-browning apples, ect. ect. ect.? Hate on Monsanto all you want, but leave genetic engineering out of it. Look at it this way: vaccines have stopped millions of deaths, but Merck is pretty nasty, so should we stop vaccinating? Should a technology be judged based on a company's actions? No, that's dumb. Fact is, GMOs are not a silver bullet to the world's hunger problems, no technical solution is, but if you think that genetically improving a plant can't help, that if nitrogen use efficiency traits or drought resistance traits can't ease the problems, then you must be pretty clueless. Look at the Rainbow papaya as a case study...before the GMO papaya was introduced to Hawaii, the papaya ringspot virus was eradicating the crop. After the GMO, the disease disappeared, production returned to normal. It works and it works well, that's a fact, and it should be used, and the fear and rejection and over-regulation of it is unwarranted. Sure, Monsanto can be an ass, but that's no reason not to let someone use this technology.
And by the way, those non-Monsanto GMOs I mentioned...yeah, the anti-GMO people are against those too. The grape rootstocks being developed by the French government, for example, aren't being developed anymore because they were all burnt down in the night by science hating anti-GE arsonists. People who claim they're 'not anti science but anti-Monsanto' are usually full of crap because they're also against things like Rainbow papaya (made by a university), HoneySweet plum (made by the USDA), Arctic apple (made by a small company), and Golden Rice (made by a charity NGO). You can't claim to be against big corporation GMOs when you're also against those from universities, governments, small companies, and NGOs. Who else does that leave?