these foods are chemically indistinguishable from non-GMO plants.
Except they produce proteins which provide resistance to glyphosate, right? That would imply they are distinguishable, right? If they weren't, how would Monsanto be able to sue farmers for planting GM crops without their permission (which they do).
Anyway I agree it's generally okay to assume 'traditionally' breeded plants are safe. Eons of natural selection seems to have worked well.
What I don't agree with is the implicit trust given to the methods of introducing GM genes. A gene gun literally shotgun blasts cell DNA with the new genes stuck to metal particles hoping some sticks in the right spots; progeny are selected which express the desired trait but it can't be known if other areas of the DNA were adversely affected. Another method hijacks a soil bacterium to produce a new gene which is transferred to the target host. Relatively controlled but in an absolute sense pretty messy.
In light of the second paragraph, it should be noted the third paragraph ignores how that deliberate mutation would never happen without human intervention.
The safety aspects of GMO crops are still up for debate (obviously!). I advocate caution is all. That and transparency. If they're so freakin' safe, why does Monsanto spend sooo much cash to prevent labeling?
A lot of (probably safe to say most) pharmaceuticals are derived from plants/animals/mold/etc or based on modified existing substances. The completely novel compound is the minority. I think the analogy stands.
But aside from the potential for physical harm, there's demonstrated economic harm in the form of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops were contaminated and ecological harm by the dilution of heritage strains and acceleration of pesticide resistance. Personally, I think these are more important concerns because they are more concrete but for some reason people get upset when you attempt to steer the debate that direction.
It's true the GMOs aren't dousing themselves with pesticides. Irresponsible farmers do bear some responsibility.
The situation is analogous to antibiotics though: over-prescription by doctors leading to overuse by patients accelerates resistance. The doctors' willingness to prescribe enables the patients. You can provide patients with guidelines but it's far more effective to be more discerning in what is prescribed.
Anyway, I haven't put forth any "what ifs". My contention is that it's inappropriate to accept manufacturer's claims of safety at face value. True for other industries, true for GMO. Studies done thus far have put forth opposing conclusions about the safety of GMO crops and I'm inclined to err on the side of caution.
For me, the safety issue is ancillary to the considerations of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops get contaminated, the rights of consumers to know just what they're consuming, and the accelerated resistance of pesticides caused by overuse. There's economic and ecological harm to consider in addition to physical.
So feel free to dismiss my valid concerns as "fear mongering". Make claims I have 'no facts to stand on'. I can't do anything about your biases and you can't do anything about mine.
Based on the number of insults you fling and your ability to "checkmate" you are clearly far more qualified than the people who competed for and earned grant money to pursue the very research you disparage. Obviously if you use enough rude adjectives, people must bow to your superior logic!
But while we're talking: - mutations in chromosomes passed on to offspring are, in fact, related to the notion of 'evolution' - characterizing foreign entities as merely "differently mutated" cells is a criminally gross understatement - your naked mole rat article is interesting but the claim your support it with is a hasty generalization; odd you say "probably wouldn't find any..." but your assertion is absolute - an 'improved' immune system which better detects cancerous cells wouldn't prevent those cells from developing in the first place, right? do you realize how circular that "cancer exists because..." argument is?
That said, you are so obviously right about "over-specialization". How on earth can we trust someone who knows that much about the topic of which they speak? Clearly, the less knowledge you have of a topic the less ignorant and more qualified you are! I, for one, am waiting for you to receive your well-deserved Nobel Prize in Everything.
Your humble doltish, dipshit nitwit, EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC
P.S. What the hell does brain size and penguin eggs have to do with cancer?
Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond makes a compelling argument the 'domestication' of grains began in the Fertile Crescent, a region of Southwest Asia abutting the Mediterranean Sea.
When I heard 'westernization' of diets, I think "coca-cola".
Changing the emphasis doesn't amount to much: if the FDA is not conducting, or compelling companies to conduct, sufficiently rigorous safety assessments prior to the marketing of a GMO product and instead presumes such products to be safe until evidence to the contrary arises, they are failing their responsibility to protect consumers. Of course the FDA retains its enforcement powers; my complaint is their being reactive instead of proactive.
Sorry if my selections were unsatisfactory--I didn't think/. would appreciate the whole text. My concerns then, in general terms, are:
1) The FDA permits companies themselves to make the determination of whether the genes introduced by GM are "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS). When companies determine GM modifications are GRAS (and I'm unaware of an instance they haven't), those foods are exempt from the food additive regulations. 2) Regulatory authority is, as you point out, split across the FDA, USDA and EPA. Each of the agencies only considers a subset of a proposed product. In the case of Bt potatoes, for instance, the FDA doesn't care about the Bt protein since it's a pesticide and therefore the EPA's problem. The EPA figures the original potato was safe and the Bt protein is safe, therefore the new Bt potato is safe. Interestingly, when it comes to labeling, the potato is back to being considered food and the FDA regs prohibit labeling of pesticides so Bt potatoes are anonymous when sold. 3) When GMO crops are evaluted, they are not done so with sufficient rigor. Consider again the Bt potato: the EPA supposedly tested the effects of Bt on mice but they didn't feed the mice Bt potatoes, they fed them pure Bt. If complications arose in the production of the protein within the potato itself, they couldn't have known.
Ultimately, though, you bring up the trump card: regulatory authority. I have no doubts whatsoever this will result in litigation which ultimately sees the ban struck down.
Don't drop context: "genes from entirely separate species"
Jellyfish & potatoes: "A full-length cDNA corresponding to the RNA genome of Potato leafroll virus (PLRV) was modified by inserting cDNA that encoded the jellyfish green fluorescent protein (GFP) into the P5 gene near its 3 end." I'd say jellyfish and potato are separate species...
Or soil bacteria & potatoes: "Colorado potato beetle (CPB) resistance has been achieved through the incorporation of a gene for the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein into potatoes." Again, two separate species which wouldn't normally have any mechanism to transfer genes. Oh, and this example isin our food chain.
Glyphosate can be used responsibly. But GMO crops don't promote responsible use. They encourage "over prescription," if you will, which accelerates pests' resistance.
Not to mention GMO crops are patentable and able to cross-breed with non-GMO crops, which places that non-GMO farmer at risk of patent litigation.
Q: Does the FDA test these foods before they're allowed on the market?
A: No. Instead there is a voluntary consultation process. Genetically engineered foods are overseen by the FDA, but there is no approval process. Foods are presumed to be safe unless the FDA has evidence to the contrary, Jaffe says. The FDA "has to show that there may be a problem with the food, as opposed to the company needing to prove it's safe to FDA's satisfaction before it can get on the market," he says.
[Section V B] It is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met. In section VII., FDA provides guidance to the industry regarding prudent, scientific approaches to evaluating the safety of foods derived from new plant varieties, including the safety of the added substances that are subject to section 402(a)(1) of the act. FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.
Also, the basis for the fallacious assumption that genes introduced from other species are not worth rigorous testing: (emphasis added)
[excerpted Section V C] With respect to transferred genetic material (nucleic acids), generally FDA does not anticipate that transferred genetic material would itself be subject to food additive regulation. Nucleic acids are present in the cells of every living organism, including every plant and animal used for food by humans or animals, and do not raise a safety concern as a component of food. In regulatory terms, such material is presumed to be GRAS. Although the guidance provided in section VII. calls for a good understanding of the identity of the genetic material being transferred through genetic modification techniques, FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.
"Obviously GMO organisms are safe because we have no expectations they won't be safe." Most people would call BS on that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Does the FDA really not understand it's how those nucleic acids are arranged, not just what nucleic acids are present?
"Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent," Benbrook said.
...That's kind of the point for most people advocating GMO labeling requirements. It's still possible to find non-GMO foods but without labels, it's much harder to find them.
These are the same people who think that eating an "alkalizing" diet and drinking "alkalized water"
That's an overly broad and unfair characterization. Everyone seems to be ignoring that companies are not required to prove with sufficient rigor that GMO crops are adequately safe.
The FDA requires new pharmaceuticals to undergo years of testing. In contrast, GMO crops are assumed to be safe because they 'closely approximate' their originating crop. That's a foolish assumption.
it would still be multiple orders of magnitude lower chance than dying of many other things like cancer, heart disease, or car accidents.
This is the key argument I never seem to hear at the national discussion level. Of course, there's no direct path to authoritarian police state by fighting cancer.
Well... here in the states, corporations are people. Natural persons get due process but incorporated persons are obviously due more. Hence, no criminal prosecution for nefarious acts such as, say, collapsing the financial sector. Just token fines.
Insofar as "civil forfeiture" goes, it's simply a much more pleasant phrase than "intimidatory theft".
Americans no longer need to enter an airport to have their 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure suspended. Pretty much any activity will do, including but not limited to: being within 100 miles of the border, conducting business with any commercial entity, or communicating by electronic means such as telephone, SMS, email, Facebook or in-game chat.
Slashdot Mirror
these foods are chemically indistinguishable from non-GMO plants.
Except they produce proteins which provide resistance to glyphosate, right? That would imply they are distinguishable, right? If they weren't, how would Monsanto be able to sue farmers for planting GM crops without their permission (which they do).
Anyway I agree it's generally okay to assume 'traditionally' breeded plants are safe. Eons of natural selection seems to have worked well.
What I don't agree with is the implicit trust given to the methods of introducing GM genes. A gene gun literally shotgun blasts cell DNA with the new genes stuck to metal particles hoping some sticks in the right spots; progeny are selected which express the desired trait but it can't be known if other areas of the DNA were adversely affected. Another method hijacks a soil bacterium to produce a new gene which is transferred to the target host. Relatively controlled but in an absolute sense pretty messy.
In light of the second paragraph, it should be noted the third paragraph ignores how that deliberate mutation would never happen without human intervention.
The safety aspects of GMO crops are still up for debate (obviously!). I advocate caution is all. That and transparency. If they're so freakin' safe, why does Monsanto spend sooo much cash to prevent labeling?
A lot of (probably safe to say most) pharmaceuticals are derived from plants/animals/mold/etc or based on modified existing substances. The completely novel compound is the minority. I think the analogy stands.
But aside from the potential for physical harm, there's demonstrated economic harm in the form of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops were contaminated and ecological harm by the dilution of heritage strains and acceleration of pesticide resistance. Personally, I think these are more important concerns because they are more concrete but for some reason people get upset when you attempt to steer the debate that direction.
/eyeroll
It's true the GMOs aren't dousing themselves with pesticides. Irresponsible farmers do bear some responsibility.
The situation is analogous to antibiotics though: over-prescription by doctors leading to overuse by patients accelerates resistance. The doctors' willingness to prescribe enables the patients. You can provide patients with guidelines but it's far more effective to be more discerning in what is prescribed.
You're not listening. I'm not talking about eating nucleic acids. I'm talking about the proteins they encode.
I doubt a "simple chemical analysis" would be sufficiently rigorous to catch all changes in gene expression. I also wouldn't claim no surprises have been found so far Do you recall the Starlink corn recall?
Anyway, I haven't put forth any "what ifs". My contention is that it's inappropriate to accept manufacturer's claims of safety at face value. True for other industries, true for GMO. Studies done thus far have put forth opposing conclusions about the safety of GMO crops and I'm inclined to err on the side of caution.
For me, the safety issue is ancillary to the considerations of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops get contaminated, the rights of consumers to know just what they're consuming, and the accelerated resistance of pesticides caused by overuse. There's economic and ecological harm to consider in addition to physical.
So feel free to dismiss my valid concerns as "fear mongering". Make claims I have 'no facts to stand on'. I can't do anything about your biases and you can't do anything about mine.
Based on the number of insults you fling and your ability to "checkmate" you are clearly far more qualified than the people who competed for and earned grant money to pursue the very research you disparage. Obviously if you use enough rude adjectives, people must bow to your superior logic!
But while we're talking:
- mutations in chromosomes passed on to offspring are, in fact, related to the notion of 'evolution'
- characterizing foreign entities as merely "differently mutated" cells is a criminally gross understatement
- your naked mole rat article is interesting but the claim your support it with is a hasty generalization; odd you say "probably wouldn't find any..." but your assertion is absolute
- an 'improved' immune system which better detects cancerous cells wouldn't prevent those cells from developing in the first place, right? do you realize how circular that "cancer exists because..." argument is?
That said, you are so obviously right about "over-specialization". How on earth can we trust someone who knows that much about the topic of which they speak? Clearly, the less knowledge you have of a topic the less ignorant and more qualified you are! I, for one, am waiting for you to receive your well-deserved Nobel Prize in Everything.
Your humble doltish, dipshit nitwit,
EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC
P.S. What the hell does brain size and penguin eggs have to do with cancer?
Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond makes a compelling argument the 'domestication' of grains began in the Fertile Crescent, a region of Southwest Asia abutting the Mediterranean Sea.
When I heard 'westernization' of diets, I think "coca-cola".
Changing the emphasis doesn't amount to much: if the FDA is not conducting, or compelling companies to conduct, sufficiently rigorous safety assessments prior to the marketing of a GMO product and instead presumes such products to be safe until evidence to the contrary arises, they are failing their responsibility to protect consumers. Of course the FDA retains its enforcement powers; my complaint is their being reactive instead of proactive.
Sorry if my selections were unsatisfactory--I didn't think /. would appreciate the whole text. My concerns then, in general terms, are:
1) The FDA permits companies themselves to make the determination of whether the genes introduced by GM are "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS). When companies determine GM modifications are GRAS (and I'm unaware of an instance they haven't), those foods are exempt from the food additive regulations.
2) Regulatory authority is, as you point out, split across the FDA, USDA and EPA. Each of the agencies only considers a subset of a proposed product. In the case of Bt potatoes, for instance, the FDA doesn't care about the Bt protein since it's a pesticide and therefore the EPA's problem. The EPA figures the original potato was safe and the Bt protein is safe, therefore the new Bt potato is safe. Interestingly, when it comes to labeling, the potato is back to being considered food and the FDA regs prohibit labeling of pesticides so Bt potatoes are anonymous when sold.
3) When GMO crops are evaluted, they are not done so with sufficient rigor. Consider again the Bt potato: the EPA supposedly tested the effects of Bt on mice but they didn't feed the mice Bt potatoes, they fed them pure Bt. If complications arose in the production of the protein within the potato itself, they couldn't have known.
How's that for process? Does the USDA do better? That second link you provided describes how the USDA 'streamlined' its regulations in order to "reduce the length of the petition process by more than 50 percent". I don't consider that an improvement.
Ultimately, though, you bring up the trump card: regulatory authority. I have no doubts whatsoever this will result in litigation which ultimately sees the ban struck down.
Don't drop context: "genes from entirely separate species"
Jellyfish & potatoes: "A full-length cDNA corresponding to the RNA genome of Potato leafroll virus (PLRV) was modified by inserting cDNA that encoded the jellyfish green fluorescent protein (GFP) into the P5 gene near its 3 end." I'd say jellyfish and potato are separate species...
Or soil bacteria & potatoes: "Colorado potato beetle (CPB) resistance has been achieved through the incorporation of a gene for the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein into potatoes." Again, two separate species which wouldn't normally have any mechanism to transfer genes. Oh, and this example is in our food chain.
You were saying?
You didn't take me literally enough.
then at least some officials will lose their jobs and/or land in jail.
If any officials are reprimanded, it won't be the ones deserving it. (Note: that's a huge if)
That should be in air-quotes:
And it's all "legal," according to their interpretation of the law.
Glyphosate can be used responsibly. But GMO crops don't promote responsible use. They encourage "over prescription," if you will, which accelerates pests' resistance.
Not to mention GMO crops are patentable and able to cross-breed with non-GMO crops, which places that non-GMO farmer at risk of patent litigation.
The irony here is that the FDA itself conducts no scientific review.
As reported last October: (emphasis added)
Q: Does the FDA test these foods before they're allowed on the market?
A: No. Instead there is a voluntary consultation process. Genetically engineered foods are overseen by the FDA, but there is no approval process. Foods are presumed to be safe unless the FDA has evidence to the contrary, Jaffe says. The FDA "has to show that there may be a problem with the food, as opposed to the company needing to prove it's safe to FDA's satisfaction before it can get on the market," he says.
And from the horse's mouth itself: (emphasis added)
[Section V B] It is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met. In section VII., FDA provides guidance to the industry regarding prudent, scientific approaches to evaluating the safety of foods derived from new plant varieties, including the safety of the added substances that are subject to section 402(a)(1) of the act. FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.
Also, the basis for the fallacious assumption that genes introduced from other species are not worth rigorous testing: (emphasis added)
[excerpted Section V C] With respect to transferred genetic material (nucleic acids), generally FDA does not anticipate that transferred genetic material would itself be subject to food additive regulation. Nucleic acids are present in the cells of every living organism, including every plant and animal used for food by humans or animals, and do not raise a safety concern as a component of food. In regulatory terms, such material is presumed to be GRAS. Although the guidance provided in section VII. calls for a good understanding of the identity of the genetic material being transferred through genetic modification techniques, FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.
"Obviously GMO organisms are safe because we have no expectations they won't be safe." Most people would call BS on that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Does the FDA really not understand it's how those nucleic acids are arranged, not just what nucleic acids are present?
Uh... the herbicide companies are the seed companies! Well, company.
In theory a pest resistant crop might have fewer pesticides/herbicides
And in reality, more pesticides are used on pesticide-resistant crops. FTA:
"Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent," Benbrook said.
Monsanto officials had no immediate comment.
These has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown GMO to be as or more healthy.
FTFY
Cross-breeding is very different from shot-gun insertion of genes from entirely separate species. Go educate yourself.
And what the hell does seaweed have go do with anything?
...That's kind of the point for most people advocating GMO labeling requirements. It's still possible to find non-GMO foods but without labels, it's much harder to find them.
These are the same people who think that eating an "alkalizing" diet and drinking "alkalized water"
That's an overly broad and unfair characterization. Everyone seems to be ignoring that companies are not required to prove with sufficient rigor that GMO crops are adequately safe.
The FDA requires new pharmaceuticals to undergo years of testing. In contrast, GMO crops are assumed to be safe because they 'closely approximate' their originating crop. That's a foolish assumption.
it would still be multiple orders of magnitude lower chance than dying of many other things like cancer, heart disease, or car accidents.
This is the key argument I never seem to hear at the national discussion level. Of course, there's no direct path to authoritarian police state by fighting cancer.
and elect real representatives
Uhh, yeah. Good luck with that.
Well... here in the states, corporations are people. Natural persons get due process but incorporated persons are obviously due more. Hence, no criminal prosecution for nefarious acts such as, say, collapsing the financial sector. Just token fines.
Insofar as "civil forfeiture" goes, it's simply a much more pleasant phrase than "intimidatory theft".
That punk on 9/11 could not have done as much damage to America as she's done to herself in the 12 years since 9/11.
Sure but at least we didn't let those godless turrorists win! Merica, fuck yeah!
We interrupt this post for a breaking news flash:
Americans no longer need to enter an airport to have their 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure suspended. Pretty much any activity will do, including but not limited to: being within 100 miles of the border, conducting business with any commercial entity, or communicating by electronic means such as telephone, SMS, email, Facebook or in-game chat.
An acknowledgement of wrongful confiscation and sincere apology would be a start.
Of course, he won't get either.