Sometimes they are, but the key things is that they are voluntary and not required by law, and when was the last time you saw a non-Kosher or Haram label? No one is saying never have labels; I'm saying don't make them legally required.
And how does one "take responsibility" if they do not have all the requisite information?
I literally said exactly how in my post. There is a certain list of things you avoid, or by explicitly labeled as non-GMO variants. That's how you do it. Just like how a Muslim knows not to eat bacon, even if there is no label in the ingredients section specifically saying that it is Haram, you can tell quite simply what foods probably contain GE ingredients learning about your own dietary restrictions and checking the ingredients. If you can't be buggered to spend 10 minutes learning about your own dietary belief system, then either you don't really care much about it anyway, or the push for labeling is just an attempt to further stigmatize genetic engineering. Given that major anti-GE groups like the Non-GMO Project clearly state what you need to do to avoid GE crops yet people still push for labels, this whole manufactroversy is clearly the latter case.
That's a pretty poor case you're making. If someone is knowingly, intentionally, violating patent law or breaking a contract they signed, that's their fault. I suppose you could complain about the very concept of plant patents if you care to explain how crop breeders getting paid a fair price for their work, selling something that no one is forced to buy or use but is still desirable enough to command a premium seed price, is somehow wrong.
You do realize that Monsanto is not a farming company, yes? They're an ag supply company. They want small farmers to go out of business the same way restaurant supply companies want restaurants to go out of business. What gain would Monsanto have from having less customers?
The Lie that GMO foods will end world hunger needs to die
Well that's a strawman argument. It is as false as saying that seatbelts & airbags will end all auto fatalities, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone well versed in the topic make that claim. However, just because something does not solve a problem does not imply that it does not have a role to play in the solution.
how are the people who do not want GMOs in their foods supposed to have their voices heard in the "free market" if they can't tell what foods contain GMOs?
Same way millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, vegans, and others with personal dietary restrictions get by: knowing their own beleif system. If for example a Muslim picks up a steak that does not explicitly say 'Halal' in a non-Muslim majority country, than they can reasonably assume that it is not Halal. Likewise, if you pick up a product containing corn, soy, cottonseed, canola, sugar not specified as cane sugar (that is, from a sugar beet), or summer squash or a Hawaiian papaya, you can reasonably assume it is genetically engineered. I don't think it is too much to ask that those who do not wish to consume GE crops take responsibility for their own belief system like everyone else.
Lots of people who are scientists support food labeling, of whatever things people want to know about the product.
I happen to be one of the scientists you are referring to. I work in plant science, where my opinion on this is not uncommon. I'm not against information, far from it, I want more people to know about what it is we really do in my field. What I am against is selective reporting of information, leaving out critical details, to make a falsehood appear true. There is a big difference between that and actual education. Why do you accuse me of being anti-information and anti-choice for demanding labeled be complete, honest, and accurate information while saying exactly what a GMO is?
therefore they should be denied their right to know.
If I thought that, I wouldn't have explained exactly what was what right here. I'm not denying information; just the opposite, I want complete accurate information. Where these labels fail is on the complete part of that. A lie of omission is still a lie.
I don't disagree; what I'm saying is that they have no right to legally mandate their personal dietary preferences. Notice how things like non-Kosher and Haram labels are not required by law. If, say, a Muslim demanded that non-Halal products had a Haram label on them because they were too lazy to learn about their own belief system, would you feel any sympathy for that person's 'right to know?' I certainty wouldn't knowingly do something like give such a person teriyaki chicken cooked with mirin and not tell them the food was cooked with alcohol, but still, they don't get to dictate regulations and mandate labels for something they could easily look up.
There is no genetically engineered wheat on the market. As for fruits and vegetables, well yeah farmers water before harvest for applicable crops but that's got bugger all to do with genetic engineering.
I can't imagine why. Where have you been for the past two decades? Have you really missed the controversy, fearmongering, lies, and generally unscientific bollocks that lead up to this? This push for labeling is not coming from plant & agricultural scientists, and for good reason. It is coming from people who already stigmatize GE crops and wish to do so further.
As we've seen with antibiotic resistance, expect Round-Up resistant weeds for starters.
That's a problem with any herbicide system though, to make a long story short. Here's an article from 1992, several years before the release of Round-Up Ready crops, discussing the issue of resistant weeds. You very well can't blame GE crops for something that happens to non-GE crops. Problem is, no one talks about it when it happens to other herbicides, because then it's not a 'controversy,' it's just a problem for farmers, and no one pays attention to that. I hope you can see my problem with the typical anti-GMO talking points you've likely heard; even though some of them almost sound logical, that's only without critical context, which the anti-GMO groups never give, leading to much public misunderstanding.
Incorrect. A free market means buyers and sellers are free to act as they so choose. A regulated free market is one where some things are mandated, such as ingredients and nutrition, however, optional things, such as vegan, Halal, and Kosher labels are voluntary and subject to market demand. Why for example should a papaya have to say that it is genetically engineered, but not if it is orlah? They're both exactly as relevant to the fruit's nutrition.
Mandating labels without a justification for the public good is the exact opposite of a free market.
Because facts without context are deceptive. Evolution is 'just' a theory, agree with me? So why not label that on textbooks? Hey, it's a fact, you don't want to hide facts do you? The thing is, your average person has no idea what genetic engineering really is or what it means. Giving people one small detail, without telling the complete story, without explaining the details, knowing full well that years of misinformation are going to result in them thinking something that is not so, is not informative. It is a lie of omission, plain and simple. These laws are forcing lies because no one stopped to ask people who actually know the science behind the crops what they thing.
And don't try to tell me that it is being hidden; that's another intellectually lazy excuse. A quick Google search tells you what is and is not GE, and how. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, papaya, summer squash, sugar beet, alfalfa, and soon apple and potato, with traits like insect resistance (Cry and Vip genes), herbicide tolerance (C4 EPSPS and bar genes), virus resistance (PRSV-CP and WMV-CP genes), drought tolerance (CspB), and soon consumer oriented traits. Yeah, it isn't on the label, but neither is any of the other things we do to crops that you don't know about. I've never seen head of lettuce as containing the Nr gene for aphid resistance bred in from the wild species Lactuca serriola. I've never seen a product containing watermelon labeled as containing an artificially produced polyploid, as seedless watermelons are. I've never seen an apple labeled as being a bud sport, a somatic mutant derived form a chance shoot, as many apples in stores are. I've enver seen citrus labeled as having been developed through radiation induced mutagenesis, yet that happens. I've never seen corn be labeled as having been produced via doubled haploid hybridization, yet that is also a thing. I could go on but you get the point. Every plant in the grocery store has a story. Genetic engineering is just one part of that.
Now, what you are asking is why food producers don't want to single out one part of a much larger story, one that has been stigmatized by years of scientifically baseless fearmongering, knowing that your average person is completely ignorant of the history and present science of crops and agriculture, and slap a label on that doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful (genetically modified how and why? Label doesn't say). Be real here, they have a very good reason for it. This push for labeling is just the GMO denialists' response to being completely wrong about the safety and benefits of genetic engineering. They lost on the facts, now they're trying to make it look like genetic engineering needs labels, because if they're so safe why hide it? Of course, these same people then point to Europe and say 'if they're so safe why do they need labels?'
I'll believe this is about honesty and transparency whenever the anti-GMO crowd demands that non-GMO corn be labeled as having higher mycotoxin levels. I'm not holding my breath for that though.
Yep. I agree that using ad-blocking software is not just reasonable, but essential, in the vast majority of cases, seeing as how they tent to bog things down, serve up various malwares, and generally act as digital pestilence, but in the case of the ads on Youtube, nope, not seeing that. I don't get the anger of having to watch a 15 second ad to support all the content you are getting for free, content which is supported by those ads. What exactly is just so wrong with that?
This is a common misconception. That a thing is nutritionally substantially equivalent does not imply it is cannot be patented. The Gale Gala apple, to give one example of many, is patented. It is a bud sport (a somatic spontaneous mutant arising from a bud growth) of the standard Gala apple which is commercially propagated and cultivated. It can be patented because it is a unique thing, however, it does not fall outside the range of any standard apple nutrition variation, nor I might add does it anyone require it be so labeled. In fact, there are lots of patented conventionally bred crops; plant patents are nothing new. The last peach you ate might have been one of the patented Flamin Fury peaches, or maybe the last time you consumed sunflower it came from a patented Clearfield sunflower, or perhaps your last. Neither the apple, peach, nor sunflowers I mentioned are genetically engineered.
The problem with labeling GE crops is that GE crops are not substantially different from any other crops, so not justified, and beyond that, it's deceptive. You don't see any other crop improvement technique market for singling out, just one, and you want to label it, not tell people the exact details, not tell people the hows or the whys, not correct any misconceptions, and give no context about the generalities of crop genetics that are prerequisite to understanding the topic. I call that a lie of omission.
You label an Arctic apple that has PPO gene silencing, but not label applesauce made with a Gravenstein apples, which are triploids with an entire extra set of chromosomes. You label a Rainbow papaya genetically engineered with the PRSV-CP gene, but not a Pusa Nanha papaya produced with radiation induced mutagenesis. A tomato with the Ph-3 gene for late blight resistance bred in from a wild species goes unlabeled, but a potato with GE late blight resistance is. Corn bred for higher levels of maisin as a defense against insects is unlabeled, but you must label genetically engineered insect resistant Bt corn, even though it has been shown to have lower levels of carcinogenic mycotoxins.
Do you see my problem here? This is basically the 'evolution is just a theory' label thing all over again. Yes, labeling things that are GE as such is technically true, but unless you are also giving the whole story (which a simple label absolutely does not give), it is also deceptive and just a way to make GE crops look bad when there is no science to support the anti-GE movement's stance.
Now, having said that, I am perfectly sympathetic to wanting to eat "natural" vegetables without any GMO or herbicides involved in their production.
Even then, natural is defined by how new it is anymore. Lots of crops have been altered in all sorts of ways that people don't know about, either by selecting of somatic cell line mutants (like certain apples), inducing mutations (like red grapefruit), breeding with wild related species, sometimes with create difficulty (like late blight resistant tomatoes), chemically altering the chromosome count (like seedless watermelons), ect. And of course, conventional section which has turned a wild mustard into cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, kohlrabi (those are all the same species, Brassica oleracea). I don't think that fits any reasonable definition of natural, and yet, because people do not know about it and it has been going on for a long time, you can have 'natural' triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye which was sterile until its chromosome count was doubled chemically). People's views on this topic are very...well, they're something. I mean, if you want to pay extra for it that's your call, although I really hate the marketers who are playing to people's fears on this one and laughing all the way to the bank about it.
This article is going to further cloud the issue and I fear its going to give Monsanto and its ilk free reign to continue their abuse of the local seed supply.
And how, exactly, are they doing that? What your are implying is not true at all. Farmers are free to buy whatever seed they liked, or save their own.
The issue has never been about GMO itself,
The opposition to genetic engineering started with the first one on the market, the Flavr Savr tomato, which had better shelf life due to a silenced polygalacturonase gene. This continued onto Bt corn, which is insect resistant and the Rainbow papaya, which was disease resistant, and now on to things like the low acrylamide Innate potato and non-browning Arctic apples, and even extends to things like vitamin A enriched Golden Rice. The only thing those have in common is the fact that they are all GE. Saying the GMO controversy is not about genetic engineering itself is disingenuous at best.
its when you use it to introduce resistance to toxic chemicals that you start to have a real problem.
First off, if true, explain why there is no controversy over conventionally bred crops like the Clearfield wheat and sunflower lines that to do the same thing? Yep, that's right, conventional breeding is used to do exactly what you just mentioned, and nobody cares or makes a fuss, probably because of how few people are really aware of any basic aspects of agriculture. Second, explain your alternative weed control method. The reason farmers do this is because, before, you'd have to have a certain number of pre- and post- emergent herbicides, a god number of which are worse than glyphosate (the main but not only one GE crops are resistant to, there's also the Liberty system which uses glufosinate) possibly combined with soil-eroding tillage, to control weeds. Now you've got a simpler system, with less toxic herbicides, and somehow that's a bad thing. Okay, fair enough, what do you suggest as a superior alternative to control weed control, baring in mind that weed control is not optional?
That resistance not only allows to overuse of toxic chemicals (to the point of saturating the local environment), you also introduce a form of addiction where the farmer becomes dependent on the chemical. This addiction dooms the farmer to a form of indentured servitude and will eventually result in their exiting the market due to unsustainability.
That's very wrong. Like I said, the herbicide resistance systems are not about brute forcing things. You've got a plant producing a bacterial form of the enzyme inhibited by the herbicide (in glyphosate's case; glufosinate and glufosinate resistance have a different mode of action). This does not imply you get to 'douse' things in it; that's a bullshit anti-GE talking point. And if you do the EPA will be up your ass soon enough if you get caught. And it certainly doesn't stop a farmer from switching to another system the next year; in fact, switching is encouraged as it mitigates the emergence of herbicide tolerant weeds.
Your view is very common, and it is easy to see why it is a common view, but it is very wrong and very disconnected from actual agriculture.
Well, my glass door fridge would come with an advanced dual pressed cellulose memory & graphite core marking system which would allow you to check and record items prior to even leaving your home for the grocery store! Poor connectivity and data fees are a thing of the past, there'll be no more frustration as you try to make out the date on the bottom of a jar through a smartphone in the middle of the condiment aisle, and thanks to it's advanced solid state data storage system you don't even have to worry about battery life when accessing your data. I call this revolutionary next-gen technology 'Grocery list.'
For years I've been wanting something that would enable me to see inside my refrigerator without opening the door and wasting electricity. I always kinda figured the solution would involve a thick glass door and a light switch though. This is cool and all, I guess, but I'd rather have something simpler, with less things to go wrong and break down, and if my last fridge is any indication, that's kinda an issue.
It isn't entirely about money. There's also the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement making noise here. Basically, there are people who think the Hawai'i should secede from the US and Hawaiian Kingdom should be re-established. This is an easy target to rally around to gather support. The beauty of it is they are wrong. If they win, they get to say 'Hey everyone look what we did!' If they (rightfully) lose, they get to claim oppression because they don't have racial control over land and use that to drum up further support.
Personally, I think holding back science which benefits all of humanity for a financial payoff is a bit less unsavory that doing it for your own petty power struggles, but that's just my opinion.
Yep, it isn't like people are lining up to pay for that land. It's cold, barren, with low oxygen. Worth is determined by what people will pay for it; if no one wanted gold, it would be worthless. It is true that the leases on the previous telescopes generated very little money (although I have no doubt they benefited the economy of the Big Island in other ways), and so if someone wanted to complain about that, they might have a case, but in the TMT's case they were going to pay quite a large sum for the land, $1 million a year. A million annually for something no one else is going to pay for is quite a bit if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
which are already labeled on the packaging.
Sometimes they are, but the key things is that they are voluntary and not required by law, and when was the last time you saw a non-Kosher or Haram label? No one is saying never have labels; I'm saying don't make them legally required.
And how does one "take responsibility" if they do not have all the requisite information?
I literally said exactly how in my post. There is a certain list of things you avoid, or by explicitly labeled as non-GMO variants. That's how you do it. Just like how a Muslim knows not to eat bacon, even if there is no label in the ingredients section specifically saying that it is Haram, you can tell quite simply what foods probably contain GE ingredients learning about your own dietary restrictions and checking the ingredients. If you can't be buggered to spend 10 minutes learning about your own dietary belief system, then either you don't really care much about it anyway, or the push for labeling is just an attempt to further stigmatize genetic engineering. Given that major anti-GE groups like the Non-GMO Project clearly state what you need to do to avoid GE crops yet people still push for labels, this whole manufactroversy is clearly the latter case.
That's a pretty poor case you're making. If someone is knowingly, intentionally, violating patent law or breaking a contract they signed, that's their fault. I suppose you could complain about the very concept of plant patents if you care to explain how crop breeders getting paid a fair price for their work, selling something that no one is forced to buy or use but is still desirable enough to command a premium seed price, is somehow wrong.
You do realize that Monsanto is not a farming company, yes? They're an ag supply company. They want small farmers to go out of business the same way restaurant supply companies want restaurants to go out of business. What gain would Monsanto have from having less customers?
The Lie that GMO foods will end world hunger needs to die
Well that's a strawman argument. It is as false as saying that seatbelts & airbags will end all auto fatalities, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone well versed in the topic make that claim. However, just because something does not solve a problem does not imply that it does not have a role to play in the solution.
how are the people who do not want GMOs in their foods supposed to have their voices heard in the "free market" if they can't tell what foods contain GMOs?
Same way millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, vegans, and others with personal dietary restrictions get by: knowing their own beleif system. If for example a Muslim picks up a steak that does not explicitly say 'Halal' in a non-Muslim majority country, than they can reasonably assume that it is not Halal. Likewise, if you pick up a product containing corn, soy, cottonseed, canola, sugar not specified as cane sugar (that is, from a sugar beet), or summer squash or a Hawaiian papaya, you can reasonably assume it is genetically engineered. I don't think it is too much to ask that those who do not wish to consume GE crops take responsibility for their own belief system like everyone else.
Lots of people who are scientists support food labeling, of whatever things people want to know about the product.
I happen to be one of the scientists you are referring to. I work in plant science, where my opinion on this is not uncommon. I'm not against information, far from it, I want more people to know about what it is we really do in my field. What I am against is selective reporting of information, leaving out critical details, to make a falsehood appear true. There is a big difference between that and actual education. Why do you accuse me of being anti-information and anti-choice for demanding labeled be complete, honest, and accurate information while saying exactly what a GMO is?
therefore they should be denied their right to know.
If I thought that, I wouldn't have explained exactly what was what right here. I'm not denying information; just the opposite, I want complete accurate information. Where these labels fail is on the complete part of that. A lie of omission is still a lie.
I don't disagree; what I'm saying is that they have no right to legally mandate their personal dietary preferences. Notice how things like non-Kosher and Haram labels are not required by law. If, say, a Muslim demanded that non-Halal products had a Haram label on them because they were too lazy to learn about their own belief system, would you feel any sympathy for that person's 'right to know?' I certainty wouldn't knowingly do something like give such a person teriyaki chicken cooked with mirin and not tell them the food was cooked with alcohol, but still, they don't get to dictate regulations and mandate labels for something they could easily look up.
There is no genetically engineered wheat on the market. As for fruits and vegetables, well yeah farmers water before harvest for applicable crops but that's got bugger all to do with genetic engineering.
Why do you think it stigmatizes anything?
I can't imagine why. Where have you been for the past two decades? Have you really missed the controversy, fearmongering, lies, and generally unscientific bollocks that lead up to this? This push for labeling is not coming from plant & agricultural scientists, and for good reason. It is coming from people who already stigmatize GE crops and wish to do so further.
As we've seen with antibiotic resistance, expect Round-Up resistant weeds for starters.
That's a problem with any herbicide system though, to make a long story short. Here's an article from 1992, several years before the release of Round-Up Ready crops, discussing the issue of resistant weeds. You very well can't blame GE crops for something that happens to non-GE crops. Problem is, no one talks about it when it happens to other herbicides, because then it's not a 'controversy,' it's just a problem for farmers, and no one pays attention to that. I hope you can see my problem with the typical anti-GMO talking points you've likely heard; even though some of them almost sound logical, that's only without critical context, which the anti-GMO groups never give, leading to much public misunderstanding.
Regardless, if you'd rather pull the product than relabel it then you know in advance that your product can't survive with an accurate label.
How do you think it would affect sales if organic products had to 'accurately' say that they were grown in 400-700 nm radiation?
Incorrect. A free market means buyers and sellers are free to act as they so choose. A regulated free market is one where some things are mandated, such as ingredients and nutrition, however, optional things, such as vegan, Halal, and Kosher labels are voluntary and subject to market demand. Why for example should a papaya have to say that it is genetically engineered, but not if it is orlah? They're both exactly as relevant to the fruit's nutrition.
Mandating labels without a justification for the public good is the exact opposite of a free market.
Because facts without context are deceptive. Evolution is 'just' a theory, agree with me? So why not label that on textbooks? Hey, it's a fact, you don't want to hide facts do you? The thing is, your average person has no idea what genetic engineering really is or what it means. Giving people one small detail, without telling the complete story, without explaining the details, knowing full well that years of misinformation are going to result in them thinking something that is not so, is not informative. It is a lie of omission, plain and simple. These laws are forcing lies because no one stopped to ask people who actually know the science behind the crops what they thing.
And don't try to tell me that it is being hidden; that's another intellectually lazy excuse. A quick Google search tells you what is and is not GE, and how. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, papaya, summer squash, sugar beet, alfalfa, and soon apple and potato, with traits like insect resistance (Cry and Vip genes), herbicide tolerance (C4 EPSPS and bar genes), virus resistance (PRSV-CP and WMV-CP genes), drought tolerance (CspB), and soon consumer oriented traits. Yeah, it isn't on the label, but neither is any of the other things we do to crops that you don't know about. I've never seen head of lettuce as containing the Nr gene for aphid resistance bred in from the wild species Lactuca serriola. I've never seen a product containing watermelon labeled as containing an artificially produced polyploid, as seedless watermelons are. I've never seen an apple labeled as being a bud sport, a somatic mutant derived form a chance shoot, as many apples in stores are. I've enver seen citrus labeled as having been developed through radiation induced mutagenesis, yet that happens. I've never seen corn be labeled as having been produced via doubled haploid hybridization, yet that is also a thing. I could go on but you get the point. Every plant in the grocery store has a story. Genetic engineering is just one part of that.
Now, what you are asking is why food producers don't want to single out one part of a much larger story, one that has been stigmatized by years of scientifically baseless fearmongering, knowing that your average person is completely ignorant of the history and present science of crops and agriculture, and slap a label on that doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful (genetically modified how and why? Label doesn't say). Be real here, they have a very good reason for it. This push for labeling is just the GMO denialists' response to being completely wrong about the safety and benefits of genetic engineering. They lost on the facts, now they're trying to make it look like genetic engineering needs labels, because if they're so safe why hide it? Of course, these same people then point to Europe and say 'if they're so safe why do they need labels?'
I'll believe this is about honesty and transparency whenever the anti-GMO crowd demands that non-GMO corn be labeled as having higher mycotoxin levels. I'm not holding my breath for that though.
Yep. I agree that using ad-blocking software is not just reasonable, but essential, in the vast majority of cases, seeing as how they tent to bog things down, serve up various malwares, and generally act as digital pestilence, but in the case of the ads on Youtube, nope, not seeing that. I don't get the anger of having to watch a 15 second ad to support all the content you are getting for free, content which is supported by those ads. What exactly is just so wrong with that?
This is like the future of the 1980's cartoons finally coming true.
This is a common misconception. That a thing is nutritionally substantially equivalent does not imply it is cannot be patented. The Gale Gala apple, to give one example of many, is patented. It is a bud sport (a somatic spontaneous mutant arising from a bud growth) of the standard Gala apple which is commercially propagated and cultivated. It can be patented because it is a unique thing, however, it does not fall outside the range of any standard apple nutrition variation, nor I might add does it anyone require it be so labeled. In fact, there are lots of patented conventionally bred crops; plant patents are nothing new. The last peach you ate might have been one of the patented Flamin Fury peaches, or maybe the last time you consumed sunflower it came from a patented Clearfield sunflower, or perhaps your last. Neither the apple, peach, nor sunflowers I mentioned are genetically engineered.
The problem with labeling GE crops is that GE crops are not substantially different from any other crops, so not justified, and beyond that, it's deceptive. You don't see any other crop improvement technique market for singling out, just one, and you want to label it, not tell people the exact details, not tell people the hows or the whys, not correct any misconceptions, and give no context about the generalities of crop genetics that are prerequisite to understanding the topic. I call that a lie of omission.
You label an Arctic apple that has PPO gene silencing, but not label applesauce made with a Gravenstein apples, which are triploids with an entire extra set of chromosomes. You label a Rainbow papaya genetically engineered with the PRSV-CP gene, but not a Pusa Nanha papaya produced with radiation induced mutagenesis. A tomato with the Ph-3 gene for late blight resistance bred in from a wild species goes unlabeled, but a potato with GE late blight resistance is. Corn bred for higher levels of maisin as a defense against insects is unlabeled, but you must label genetically engineered insect resistant Bt corn, even though it has been shown to have lower levels of carcinogenic mycotoxins.
Do you see my problem here? This is basically the 'evolution is just a theory' label thing all over again. Yes, labeling things that are GE as such is technically true, but unless you are also giving the whole story (which a simple label absolutely does not give), it is also deceptive and just a way to make GE crops look bad when there is no science to support the anti-GE movement's stance.
Now, having said that, I am perfectly sympathetic to wanting to eat "natural" vegetables without any GMO or herbicides involved in their production.
Even then, natural is defined by how new it is anymore. Lots of crops have been altered in all sorts of ways that people don't know about, either by selecting of somatic cell line mutants (like certain apples), inducing mutations (like red grapefruit), breeding with wild related species, sometimes with create difficulty (like late blight resistant tomatoes), chemically altering the chromosome count (like seedless watermelons), ect. And of course, conventional section which has turned a wild mustard into cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, kohlrabi (those are all the same species, Brassica oleracea). I don't think that fits any reasonable definition of natural, and yet, because people do not know about it and it has been going on for a long time, you can have 'natural' triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye which was sterile until its chromosome count was doubled chemically). People's views on this topic are very...well, they're something. I mean, if you want to pay extra for it that's your call, although I really hate the marketers who are playing to people's fears on this one and laughing all the way to the bank about it.
This article is going to further cloud the issue and I fear its going to give Monsanto and its ilk free reign to continue their abuse of the local seed supply.
And how, exactly, are they doing that? What your are implying is not true at all. Farmers are free to buy whatever seed they liked, or save their own.
The issue has never been about GMO itself,
The opposition to genetic engineering started with the first one on the market, the Flavr Savr tomato, which had better shelf life due to a silenced polygalacturonase gene. This continued onto Bt corn, which is insect resistant and the Rainbow papaya, which was disease resistant, and now on to things like the low acrylamide Innate potato and non-browning Arctic apples, and even extends to things like vitamin A enriched Golden Rice. The only thing those have in common is the fact that they are all GE. Saying the GMO controversy is not about genetic engineering itself is disingenuous at best.
its when you use it to introduce resistance to toxic chemicals that you start to have a real problem.
First off, if true, explain why there is no controversy over conventionally bred crops like the Clearfield wheat and sunflower lines that to do the same thing? Yep, that's right, conventional breeding is used to do exactly what you just mentioned, and nobody cares or makes a fuss, probably because of how few people are really aware of any basic aspects of agriculture. Second, explain your alternative weed control method. The reason farmers do this is because, before, you'd have to have a certain number of pre- and post- emergent herbicides, a god number of which are worse than glyphosate (the main but not only one GE crops are resistant to, there's also the Liberty system which uses glufosinate) possibly combined with soil-eroding tillage, to control weeds. Now you've got a simpler system, with less toxic herbicides, and somehow that's a bad thing. Okay, fair enough, what do you suggest as a superior alternative to control weed control, baring in mind that weed control is not optional?
That resistance not only allows to overuse of toxic chemicals (to the point of saturating the local environment), you also introduce a form of addiction where the farmer becomes dependent on the chemical. This addiction dooms the farmer to a form of indentured servitude and will eventually result in their exiting the market due to unsustainability.
That's very wrong. Like I said, the herbicide resistance systems are not about brute forcing things. You've got a plant producing a bacterial form of the enzyme inhibited by the herbicide (in glyphosate's case; glufosinate and glufosinate resistance have a different mode of action). This does not imply you get to 'douse' things in it; that's a bullshit anti-GE talking point. And if you do the EPA will be up your ass soon enough if you get caught. And it certainly doesn't stop a farmer from switching to another system the next year; in fact, switching is encouraged as it mitigates the emergence of herbicide tolerant weeds.
Your view is very common, and it is easy to see why it is a common view, but it is very wrong and very disconnected from actual agriculture.
Well, my glass door fridge would come with an advanced dual pressed cellulose memory & graphite core marking system which would allow you to check and record items prior to even leaving your home for the grocery store! Poor connectivity and data fees are a thing of the past, there'll be no more frustration as you try to make out the date on the bottom of a jar through a smartphone in the middle of the condiment aisle, and thanks to it's advanced solid state data storage system you don't even have to worry about battery life when accessing your data. I call this revolutionary next-gen technology 'Grocery list.'
For years I've been wanting something that would enable me to see inside my refrigerator without opening the door and wasting electricity. I always kinda figured the solution would involve a thick glass door and a light switch though. This is cool and all, I guess, but I'd rather have something simpler, with less things to go wrong and break down, and if my last fridge is any indication, that's kinda an issue.
Also, here's the link that was omitted.
Can we go back to when being cynical for cynicism's sake wasn't cool?
It isn't entirely about money. There's also the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement making noise here. Basically, there are people who think the Hawai'i should secede from the US and Hawaiian Kingdom should be re-established. This is an easy target to rally around to gather support. The beauty of it is they are wrong. If they win, they get to say 'Hey everyone look what we did!' If they (rightfully) lose, they get to claim oppression because they don't have racial control over land and use that to drum up further support.
Personally, I think holding back science which benefits all of humanity for a financial payoff is a bit less unsavory that doing it for your own petty power struggles, but that's just my opinion.
Yep, it isn't like people are lining up to pay for that land. It's cold, barren, with low oxygen. Worth is determined by what people will pay for it; if no one wanted gold, it would be worthless. It is true that the leases on the previous telescopes generated very little money (although I have no doubt they benefited the economy of the Big Island in other ways), and so if someone wanted to complain about that, they might have a case, but in the TMT's case they were going to pay quite a large sum for the land, $1 million a year. A million annually for something no one else is going to pay for is quite a bit if you ask me.