The World According to Monsanto

DriftingByTheStorm

LaterDays wrote:

but this alarmist reaction to GMO foods is scientifically unsubstantiated.

really?
and what "scinetifically substantiated" proof can you offer that there are no possible negative consequences of infecting nature with sythesized genetic material?

Because i find your statement to be pretty bold.

Thanks.

DriftingByTheStorm

LaterDays wrote:

I'm not going to defend Monsanto (I'm a physicist-turned-Patent-Attorney and I've actually litigated against Monsanto in a number of patent infringement suits), but this alarmist reaction to GMO foods is scientifically unsubstantiated. They're safe and they're here to stay.

BusinesWeek article\debate on subject

article wrote:

The modification of some crops to improve their resistance to herbicides has given rise to a rapidly growing population of herbicide-resistant weeds, which has led to more herbicide use.

That alone is a valid scientificaly substantiated reason for concern. Its the same way vaccines can cause more rapid mutation of viruses.

Notice that the argument for GMOs hinges on the false logic that because the world is facing one problem (overpopulation) we should offset that with another long term negative (potential destruction of the food supply and of natural ecosystems).

Jeffery Smith explains how "science" backed by the GMO proponets is rigged and not necessarily accurate.

Read his book\books, Seeds of Deception and so forth, it gets worse.

Notice that the arguments in the Businessweek article all hinge on, "have not yet observed" or "it is unlikely" ... okay, so based on your limited observations it is possible but you haven't found it yet, or you say it could happen, but you don't think its really an issue.

Yeah, i don't find much comfort in that.
another short video

Substantiated Scientific Fact: GMO seed can and does infect "natural" plants of the same species.
You don't see how this could turn out to be a very big problem if it was found out that said GMO material caused some great harm, and further it was now "infecting" non-GMO crops with the same defect? You don't see how it is a big problem, even baring some horrible discovery about the effects of GMO? They are plain and simple destroying naturaly cultivated crops and ruining the genetic material of long existing strains of crop.

LaterDays

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

really?
and what "scinetifically substantiated" proof can you offer that there are no possible negative consequences of infecting nature with sythesized genetic material?

Because i find your statement to be pretty bold.

Thanks.

You're getting your burdens of proof mixed up. It isn't on the Ag-Biotech industry to show that there are "no possible negative consequences" associated with their products. Take cell phones for instance -- for all we know, long-term (10+ years) cell phone use could conceivably cause brain cancer. No one anywhere can point to "scientifically substantiated proof... that there are no possible negative consequences" associated with talking on cell phones. But that isn't the relevant question. The relevant question is, what scientific evidence do we have that suggests cell phone use is harmful... and is the risk high enough to justify a legal ban on that use.

So applying the analysis to Ag-biotech... the burden is on the industry to demonstrate that GM foods are reasonably safe for their intended purpose. If they can't do this, they don't satisfy the stringent requirements of the FDA and the EPA and they get killed in the water. This has happened with an abundant number of foods... but it has also happened with an abundant number of, say, pharmaceutical drugs as well. It's just how it goes. The ones that get passed, however, go through a series of clinical trials to test safety (both for consumption and harvest)... the designing company must issue comprehensive environment impact statements, etc.

Once the biotech company has satisfied this burden, the burden shifts to parties wishing to challenge the product as unsafe. And that's where my post above comes into play -- there is scant evidence, at best, to suggest that GMO foods are anything but safe. In many instances, in fact, they have proven to be more safe (several, for example, have been manufactured to excrete pesticides that are non-toxic to humans, meaning we don't have to spray chemical herbicides and pesticides to keep them safe... others are made genetically resistant to freezing, so we can keep them in freezing conditions for transport - without harming them - rather than having to use preservatives to keep them from going bad).

I don't have a dog in this fight either way... but having litigated in the field and having spoken extensively w/ experts on both sides, it has become clear to me that those pushing the anti-GMO agenda are in it strictly for economic incentives (usually small farm unions, etc). It's the familiar fear-based politics that we've all grown sadly accustomed to over the last decade.

polaris

LaterDays wrote:

You're getting your burdens of proof mixed up. It isn't on the Ag-Biotech industry to show that there are "no possible negative consequences" associated with their products. Take cell phones for instance -- for all we know, long-term (10+ years) cell phone use could conceivably cause brain cancer. No one anywhere can point to "scientifically substantiated proof... that there are no possible negative consequences" associated with talking on cell phones. But that isn't the relevant question. The relevant question is, what scientific evidence do we have that suggests cell phone use is harmful... and is the risk high enough to justify a legal ban on that use.

So applying the analysis to Ag-biotech... the burden is on the industry to demonstrate that GM foods are reasonably safe for their intended purpose. If they can't do this, they don't satisfy the stringent requirements of the FDA and the EPA and they get killed in the water. This has happened with an abundant number of foods... but it has also happened with an abundant number of, say, pharmaceutical drugs as well. It's just how it goes. The ones that get passed, however, go through a series of clinical trials to test safety (both for consumption and harvest)... the designing company must issue comprehensive environment impact statements, etc.

Once the biotech company has satisfied this burden, the burden shifts to parties wishing to challenge the product as unsafe. And that's where my post above comes into play -- there is scant evidence, at best, to suggest that GMO foods are anything but safe. In many instances, in fact, they have proven to be more safe (several, for example, have been manufactured to excrete pesticides that are non-toxic to humans, meaning we don't have to spray chemical herbicides and pesticides to keep them safe... others are made genetically resistant to freezing, so we can keep them in freezing conditions for transport - without harming them - rather than having to use preservatives to keep them from going bad).

I don't have a dog in this fight either way... but having litigated in the field and having spoken extensively w/ experts on both sides, it has become clear to me that those pushing the anti-GMO agenda are in it strictly for economic incentives (usually small farm unions, etc). It's the familiar fear-based politics that we've all grown sadly accustomed to over the last decade.

the problem with this thinking is that you are looking at it strictly in a legal manner ... as well as presuming that monsanto acts with integrity ...

monsanto controls the fda ... they could have studies that show that their products have significant risk to human health but they still get approved because agencies such as the fda and epa no longer serve the citizenry ...

in considering gmo products - it's not only long-term health issues to people (lord knows there is a lot of shit we do to our bodies between food and other crap) but it's the long-term effects on the environment as well ... maintaining ecological diversity, it's impact to other organisms ..

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Monsanto is a corporation whose products destroy natural crops by default, and take dominion of the worlds food supply into the hands of a few.

Who in their right mind would be ok with that?

That should be beyond illegal. It's genetic warfare. The more one finds out, the uglier it gets...

You do realize that, because of these technological advancements, we are able to reduce hunger worldwide.


Of course, we could just let the Africans DIE, you know.

LaterDays

polaris wrote:

the problem with this thinking is that you are looking at it strictly in a legal manner ... as well as presuming that monsanto acts with integrity ...

monsanto controls the fda ... they could have studies that show that their products have significant risk to human health but they still get approved because agencies such as the fda and epa no longer serve the citizenry ...

I assure you, even if Monsanto could "control the FDA" or the EPA, agency decisions are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (chapter 7). The Supreme Court, or at least Federal Circuit courts, have jurisdiction to review agency decisions for abuse of discretion... and there are powerful groups opposed to Monsanto (Greenpeace comes to mind) that have the clout, money, and means to fight in court any and all issues of material fact regarding GMO health or environmental safety. They offer their scientists, Monsanto offers their's, and the Courts decide on the merits. This has happened in several instances, and the pro-GMO side has prevailed on scientific grounds. The arguments against have been described as "alarmist" and "overly subjective and hypothetical."

I do sympathize with the premise of your cause. I'm very liberal, particularly in respect to the environment, but there are big companies on both sides, each with substantial monetary interests at heart. Both sides play on fear (pro-GMO side says "people world-wide are starving, technology can help feat them"... anti-GMO side says "we're going to destroy biodiversity and make ourselves sick w/ harmful foods). I tend to defer to (1) scientists in the field and (2) the legal process. I do recognize that both (1) and (2) can and do get it wrong from time to time, but there aren't any truly independent, trustworthy sources of information I know of... these are the best I can find.

You can find scientists on both sides of any argument... see Global Warming or Evolution. But the overwhelming consensus believes in Evolution, a consensus (perhaps, however, not "overwhelming") believes Global Warming is man-made and is a threat... and the consensus (again, however, probably not "overwhelming") is that GMO foods do not pose a threat to either health or the environment. If the scientific opinion shifts, so will the policies. But at this point I believe the controversy is resolved (legally, anyway). GMOs have been legal in this country for close to 20 years now... they don't even require separate labeling (see Bt milk) because there are no significant differences in taste, nutrition, or composition between most GM and non-GM products. But due to consumer concern and advances in genetic engineering, GMOs are becoming more, not less, safe and effective.

polaris

LaterDays wrote:

I assure you, even if Monsanto could "control the FDA" or the EPA, agency decisions are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (chapter 7). The Supreme Court, or at least Federal Circuit courts, have jurisdiction to review agency decisions for abuse of discretion... and there are powerful groups opposed to Monsanto (Greenpeace comes to mind) that have the clout, money, and means to fight in court any and all issues of material fact regarding GMO health or environmental safety. They offer their scientists, Monsanto offers their's, and the Courts decide on the merits. This has happened in several instances, and the pro-GMO side has prevailed on scientific grounds. The arguments against have been described as "alarmist" and "overly subjective and hypothetical."

I do sympathize with the premise of your cause. I'm very liberal, particularly in respect to the environment, but there are big companies on both sides, each with substantial monetary interests at heart. Both sides play on fear (pro-GMO side says "people world-wide are starving, technology can help feat them"... anti-GMO side says "we're going to destroy biodiversity and make ourselves sick w/ harmful foods). I tend to defer to (1) scientists in the field and (2) the legal process. I do recognize that both (1) and (2) can and do get it wrong from time to time, but there aren't any truly independent, trustworthy sources of information I know of... these are the best I can find.

You can find scientists on both sides of any argument... see Global Warming or Evolution. But the overwhelming consensus believes in Evolution, a consensus (perhaps, however, not "overwhelming") believes Global Warming is man-made and is a threat... and the consensus (again, however, probably not "overwhelming") is that GMO foods do not pose a threat to either health or the environment. If the scientific opinion shifts, so will the policies. But at this point I believe the controversy is resolved (legally, anyway). GMOs have been legal in this country for close to 20 years now... they don't even require separate labeling (see Bt milk) because there are no significant differences in taste, nutrition, or composition between most GM and non-GM products. But due to consumer concern and advances in genetic engineering, GMOs are becoming more, not less, safe and effective.

the consensus amongst scientists is that global climate change is man-made IS overwhelming ...

and you can't compare lawyers from monsanto to greenpeace ... it's not even close ... i used to be an activist and these things always favour the corps because of the lobbyists that these big multi-nationals have on their side ...

look at the whole cover up with rBGH ... not to mention crap like aspartame ...

orgs like greenpeace don't have the millions of dollars to spend on court cases and wooing politicians ...

i would question your consensus on gmo foods ... if so, why is it banned in europe? ...

theroachman

godpt3 wrote:

You do realize that, because of these technological advancements, we are able to reduce hunger worldwide.


Of course, we could just let the Africans DIE, you know.

Not in slightest bit of truth in your rather utopian statement

Canada has seen nothing but drops in yeilds since allowing these fucked up practices.

Here is a US example

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9858.cfm


Plus GMO wheat and rice are designed for the US and Canada. Takes huge amounts of water to grow them and huge amounts of poisions. And you think that will some how save Africa? Where is Africa going to get all that water? And how are they to afford buying seed every year, since GMO seeds only work for one year?

Africa would be better off telling Monsonto to fuck off and go back to growing Amaranth and other native foods.

LaterDays

polaris wrote:

i would question your consensus on gmo foods ... if so, why is it banned in europe? ...

The legislature there subscribes to what it is known as the "Precautionary Principle," which holds that when human/environmental health is *potentially* at risk, a lack of scientific certainty shouldn't prevent protective action. The logic behind PP seems sound enough - when a new technology could pose a potential hazard to human life or to the environment, govts should be permitted to err on the side of caution - especially if the harm could be irreversible. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, in other words.

But the PP approach can be detrimental itself, perhaps doing more harm than good, as (1) virtually all new technology poses some potential for harm, even if wildly minute, and (2) potentially harmful technologies can also be potentially very beneficial, and their avoidance can forego valuable opportunities.

....

A couple of other points. First, there is a spectrum when it comes to GMOs. Some are very mildly transgenic (only minute presence of genetically modified organisms)... some are much more so. Failing to account for this hurts the strength of the anti-GMO arguments, as many GMO foods do have a wide consensus of safety. Focus on the techniques and products that pose a higher potential risk, I'd say, because there is - whether good or bad - virtually no practical chance of getting all GMOs banned. In fact, if you look at the ISAAA's reports over the last five years, GMO agricultural production worldwide is booming, not showing any indication of slowing down.

Second, as is the case with many technological problems/controversies, the solution isn't likely to involve "banning GMOs" or abandoning the technology. Instead, if GMOs truly do pose a risk to human health or to the environment, all that means is that we don't know enough about genetic modification right now. Rather than jumping ship and halting production of GMOs altogether, what's more likely to happen is that the focus in the industry will shift to making GMOs more safe and efficient. It's like with fossil fuel use or the cell-phone-causing-cancer analogy from earlier. When already adopted technology proves to pose a risk, we don't retreat to a time before the technology... we move forward and use technology to figure out ways to correct the harm done and avoid the future risks posed.

That's what the organic food industry should be pushing... rather than an abandonment of this booming industry, which simply isn't going to happen no matter how much any of us want it to, we should be urging the biotech companies (and the courts, FDA, EPA, etc) to develop safer, more efficient, more environmentally friendly GMOs.

polaris

LaterDays wrote:

The legislature there subscribes to what it is known as the "Precautionary Principle," which holds that when human/environmental health is *potentially* at risk, a lack of scientific certainty shouldn't prevent protective action. The logic behind PP seems sound enough - when a new technology could pose a potential hazard to human life or to the environment, govts should be permitted to err on the side of caution - especially if the harm could be irreversible. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, in other words.

But the PP approach can be detrimental itself, perhaps doing more harm than good, as (1) virtually all new technology poses some potential for harm, even if wildly minute, and (2) potentially harmful technologies can also be potentially very beneficial, and their avoidance can forego valuable opportunities.

....

A couple of other points. First, there is a spectrum when it comes to GMOs. Some are very mildly transgenic (only minute presence of genetically modified organisms)... some are much more so. Failing to account for this hurts the strength of the anti-GMO arguments, as many GMO foods do have a wide consensus of safety. Focus on the techniques and products that pose a higher potential risk, I'd say, because there is - whether good or bad - virtually no practical chance of getting all GMOs banned. In fact, if you look at the ISAAA's reports over the last five years, GMO agricultural production worldwide is booming, not showing any indication of slowing down.

Second, as is the case with many technological problems/controversies, the solution isn't likely to involve "banning GMOs" or abandoning the technology. Instead, if GMOs truly do pose a risk to human health or to the environment, all that means is that we don't know enough about genetic modification right now. Rather than jumping ship and halting production of GMOs altogether, what's more likely to happen is that the focus in the industry will shift to making GMOs more safe and efficient. It's like with fossil fuel use or the cell-phone-causing-cancer analogy from earlier. When already adopted technology proves to pose a risk, we don't retreat to a time before the technology... we move forward and use technology to figure out ways to correct the harm done and avoid the future risks posed.

That's what the organic food industry should be pushing... rather than an abandonment of this booming industry, which simply isn't going to happen no matter how much any of us want it to, we should be urging the biotech companies (and the courts, FDA, EPA, etc) to develop safer, more efficient, more environmentally friendly GMOs.

so ... we are to use the human population as our testing ground? ... look at the increase in nut allergies amongst kids ... ever since they spliced the nut into soya beans ... that number has skyrocketed ...

should there not be a guardian of the food supply? ... we can't leave it to a company like monsanto to look out for us ...

polaris

double post

LaterDays

polaris wrote:

so ... we are to use the human population as our testing ground? ... look at the increase in nut allergies amongst kids ... ever since they spliced the nut into soya beans ... that number has skyrocketed ...

should there not be a guardian of the food supply? ... we can't leave it to a company like monsanto to look out for us ...

Again, I'm not of the opinion that GMOs pose a risk to health or environment. I've also never spoken with a scientist who was willing to admit there is any evidence to suggest that any FDA-approved GM food sold in this country is unsafe. In my work as a physicist, I was employed at a medical Biotech lab in Oklahoma (ran spectral code for chemical analysis)... and as a patent attorney, I've drafted patent applications and litigated, for and against, a number of agricultural biotech companies. I've spoken with representatives from both sides (as well as a plethora of anti-pharmaceutical reps, anti-Global-Warming reps (read: Oil Executives), and even a few microbiologists who didn't believe in Evolution).

From what I've gathered from these experiences, take it or leave it (I'm guessing you'll leave it, of course), is that those opposed to GMOs are opposed to them, not on the basis of scientific data suggesting GMOs are unsafe, but rather on the basis that there is a *lack* of scientific data guaranteeing they are safe. Does that make sense, despite its poor wording?

Take evolution for instance. Those who don't "believe" in evolution (talking macro-evolution here, single-celled organisms evolving into complex multi-celled creatures such as humans) deny evolution NOT because of evidence against it (like, affirmative evidence of creationism, etc), but rather because, as they put it, "It's just a theory... there are too many holes." Fair enough. But that's the thing with science... there are *always* holes. Newtonian Gravity was exceedingly accurate, but it turned out to be incorrect (Einstein's General Relativity showed us how)... there are holes in Quantum Mechanics, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory. But... your television works because of QM, the entire medical community is based on Cell and Germ Theories, and if you still doubt Atomic Theory or Special Relativity, why don't you ask some residents of Hiroshima in 1940's to convince you otherwise.

"Science" is not an exact science. It never has been and it never likely will be. So should the human population at large be the proverbial "lab rat" for GMOs? Well, before I answer that, I ask you to consider that: Cell phones may cause terminal brain cancer. We don't know the long term health risks associated with any of the pharmaceutical medicines we take. Aspartame may have devastating unknown health effects in the long run... as may other artificial sweeteners, microwaves, scented lotions/deoderants, burning fossil fuels, etc. The list is virtually endless. In fact, now they're saying that drinking water from plastic water bottles is being linked to stomach cancer.

And that's the necessary catch-all with technology. Everything could pose a risk... do we outlaw all technology until we are absolutely certain that it isn't dangerous? If we outlaw it, how can we even ever be absolutely certain? It's just an impractical solution. But on the flip-side, some things are certainly more dangerous than others (I don't need clinical studies to tell me not to live my life in a tanning bed). We, as a society, have to figure out a screening process that keeps out technology which poses an actual, likely threat to our well-being, while allowing in technology which can be demonstrated to, in all likelihood, be safe for consumption and production.

Meet the FDA. Meet the EPA. They may not be perfect, but they're the best we have. And I believe they're necessary. I also tend to believe that, for the most part, they're objective and fair.

.....

Out of curiosity --- what is the solution you propose to the GMO dilemma?

polaris

LaterDays wrote:

Again, I'm not of the opinion that GMOs pose a risk to health or environment. I've also never spoken with a scientist who was willing to admit there is any evidence to suggest that any FDA-approved GM food sold in this country is unsafe. In my work as a physicist, I was employed at a medical Biotech lab in Oklahoma (ran spectral code for chemical analysis)... and as a patent attorney, I've drafted patent applications and litigated, for and against, a number of agricultural biotech companies. I've spoken with representatives from both sides (as well as a plethora of anti-pharmaceutical reps, anti-Global-Warming reps (read: Oil Executives), and even a few microbiologists who didn't believe in Evolution).

From what I've gathered from these experiences, take it or leave it (I'm guessing you'll leave it, of course), is that those opposed to GMOs are opposed to them, not on the basis of scientific data suggesting GMOs are unsafe, but rather on the basis that there is a *lack* of scientific data guaranteeing they are safe. Does that make sense, despite its poor wording?

Take evolution for instance. Those who don't "believe" in evolution (talking macro-evolution here, single-celled organisms evolving into complex multi-celled creatures such as humans) deny evolution NOT because of evidence against it (like, affirmative evidence of creationism, etc), but rather because, as they put it, "It's just a theory... there are too many holes." Fair enough. But that's the thing with science... there are *always* holes. Newtonian Gravity was exceedingly accurate, but it turned out to be incorrect (Einstein's General Relativity showed us how)... there are holes in Quantum Mechanics, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory. But... your television works because of QM, the entire medical community is based on Cell and Germ Theories, and if you still doubt Atomic Theory or Special Relativity, why don't you ask some residents of Hiroshima in 1940's to convince you otherwise.

"Science" is not an exact science. It never has been and it never likely will be. So should the human population at large be the proverbial "lab rat" for GMOs? Well, before I answer that, I ask you to consider that: Cell phones may cause terminal brain cancer. We don't know the long term health risks associated with any of the pharmaceutical medicines we take. Aspartame may have devastating unknown health effects in the long run... as may other artificial sweeteners, microwaves, scented lotions/deoderants, burning fossil fuels, etc. The list is virtually endless. In fact, now they're saying that drinking water from plastic water bottles is being linked to stomach cancer.

And that's the necessary catch-all with technology. Everything could pose a risk... do we outlaw all technology until we are absolutely certain that it isn't dangerous? If we outlaw it, how can we even ever be absolutely certain? It's just an impractical solution. But on the flip-side, some things are certainly more dangerous than others (I don't need clinical studies to tell me not to live my life in a tanning bed). We, as a society, have to figure out a screening process that keeps out technology which poses an actual, likely threat to our well-being, while allowing in technology which can be demonstrated to, in all likelihood, be safe for consumption and production.

Meet the FDA. Meet the EPA. They may not be perfect, but they're the best we have. And I believe they're necessary. I also tend to believe that, for the most part, they're objective and fair.

.....

Out of curiosity --- what is the solution you propose to the GMO dilemma?

well ... i don't drink water from plastic water bottles nor eat anything with aspartame ... in most scenarios u pose - they are "technological" advances that only serve to make profit for corporations - they aren't necessarily benefiting humankind ... what your points highlight is that these "advances" continue knowing full well they pose a risk human health - this is the indication of how these corporations control gov't policy and regulatory boards ...

the fda and epa are puppet organizations ... they are headed politically to further agendas without objectivity whatsoever ... look at the christie whitman who had to resign because she was a lackey for bush at the epa ...

my solution to gmo?? - we don't need it ... our issues of food supply and health go far beyond just whether we have gmo foods or not ... issues related to factory farming and fair trade and the economy makes this a not so easy discussion ...

LaterDays

polaris wrote:

so ... we are to use the human population as our testing ground? ... look at the increase in nut allergies amongst kids ... ever since they spliced the nut into soya beans ... that number has skyrocketed ...

Again, essentially every technology began by using the "human population as [the] testing ground." But there are pretty stringent standards in place that a GMO company (or any other tech company, for that matter) must pass before they are able to even begin clinical trials. The GMOs at your local grocery store, which basically includes every food product there, have passed muster before the agencies/courts, have passed muster in clinical trials, and have been "tested" on the general population for 20 years now. (The result? Despite the cries from the organic industry for it to stop, GM food production is exploding... much of the GMO food is cheaper, arguably safer, and more nutritious (my bacon has Omega-3 fatty acids and fiber!) than non-GMOs. The more the industry advances, the cheaper, safer, and nutritionally more enhanced these GMO products are likely to become).

"The safety assessment of GM foods generally investigates: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion."

sourdough

I think one of the questions we have to look at it why we are even in a position to need higher yields and whether we really need them in the first place?

Producing enough food is not the problem with famine and starvation. It is a problem with distribution and waste. Anyone who has worked at a supermarket can tell you how much is wasted per day and tons of food is intentionally spoiled as to not allow food stocks to devalue due to a flood of wheat/milk etc.

LaterDays

polaris wrote:

well ... i don't drink water from plastic water bottles nor eat anything with aspartame ... in most scenarios u pose - they are "technological" advances that only serve to make profit for corporations - they aren't necessarily benefiting humankind ... what your points highlight is that these "advances" continue knowing full well they pose a risk human health - this is the indication of how these corporations control gov't policy and regulatory boards ...

the fda and epa are puppet organizations ... they are headed politically to further agendas without objectivity whatsoever ... look at the christie whitman who had to resign because she was a lackey for bush at the epa ...

my solution to gmo?? - we don't need it ... our issues of food supply and health go far beyond just whether we have gmo foods or not ... issues related to factory farming and fair trade and the economy makes this a not so easy discussion ...

What about cell phones? Should we ban them too? Honestly, I'm not being a dick... I'm serious. If something can be shown to pose a *possibility* of a risk, no matter how abstract and unlikely it is in ever actually surfacing,... should that be grounds for banning it? If so, you're going to ban everything!

I disagree with your assessment of the FDA and EPA... but even if they were "puppet organizations," as I pointed out earlier, under the APA, the courts have judicial review for abuse of discretion. So are you suggesting the Supreme Court is a puppet organization too?

Your solution to GMOs is incomplete. Obviously, you want them gone. My question is -- what is your solution to getting rid of them? Asking Monsanto nicely? With cherries on top? Overhauling the federal government to start banning any technology that could conceivably pose some hypothetical future risk?

theroachman

LaterDays wrote:

Again, essentially every technology began by using the "human population as [the] testing ground." But there are pretty stringent standards in place that a GMO company (or any other tech company, for that matter) must pass before they are able to even begin clinical trials. The GMOs at your local grocery store, which basically includes every food product there, have passed muster before the agencies/courts, have passed muster in clinical trials, and have been "tested" on the general population for 20 years now. (The result? Despite the cries from the organic industry for it to stop, GM food production is exploding... much of the GMO food is cheaper, arguably safer, and more nutritious (my bacon has Omega-3 fatty acids and fiber!) than non-GMOs. The more the industry advances, the cheaper, safer, and nutritionally more enhanced these GMO products are likely to become).

"The safety assessment of GM foods generally investigates: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion."

I really do not see this logic of GMOs costing less. I sure would like to see a link to back that up

If you have to buy new seed each year and must only kills bugs with pesticides approved by the corporation that sold you the seeds means a higher cost.

Some how the money for the research needs to be paid for, the stock holders, the lawyers, and the CEOs need to be paid. These things add a lot to the cost of farming.

Oil based agriculture is not going to get cheaper. Oil is the main ingredient in all pesticides and all inorganic fertilizers. That is not going to go down in cost.
.

As for GMOs being healther? Lets see a link.

LaterDays

theroachman wrote:

I really do not see this logic of GMOs costing less. I sure would like to see a link to back that up

If you have to buy new seed each year and must only kills bugs with pesticides approved by the corporation that sold you the seeds means a higher cost.

Some how the money for the research needs to be paid for, the stock holders, the lawyers, and the CEOs need to be paid. These things add a lot to the cost of farming.

Oil based agriculture is not going to get cheaper. Oil is the main ingredient in all pesticides and all inorganic fertilizers. That is not going to go down in cost.
.

As for GMOs being healther? Lets see a link.

Regarding cost, the reason I said GMO products are cheaper is because I've shopped at organic food stores and everything they sell is tremendously more expensive than their non-organic counterparts. I wasn't meaning to imply that claim was based on peer-reviewed, published scientific articles.

Regarding the healthier aspects of GMOs, next time you go to Wal-Mart or Target, check out the nutritionally enhanced versions of eggs, turkey bacon, rice, etc. For one famous one off the top of my head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

As for links... I think we can both agree that, for any dispute, both sides can be supported by a near-nauseating number of internet links.

Either way, here ya go:

http://www.feedingthefuture.org/psf-producing_safe_and_healthy_food.htm
http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=3994
http://www.bio.org/foodag/faq.asp
http://www.ific.org/publications/other/biotechmythsom.cfm
http://www.ific.org/foodinsight/2000/mj/biotechsafefi300.cfm

theroachman

LaterDays wrote:

Regarding cost, the reason I said GMO products are cheaper is because I've shopped at organic food stores and everything they sell is tremendously more expensive than their non-organic counterparts. I wasn't meaning to imply that claim was based on peer-reviewed, published scientific articles.

Regarding the healthier aspects of GMOs, next time you go to Wal-Mart or Target, check out the nutritionally enhanced versions of eggs, turkey bacon, rice, etc. For one famous one off the top of my head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

As for links... I think we can both agree that, for any dispute, both sides can be supported by a near-nauseating number of internet links.

Either way, here ya go:

http://www.feedingthefuture.org/psf-producing_safe_and_healthy_food.htm
http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=3994
http://www.bio.org/foodag/faq.asp
http://www.ific.org/publications/other/biotechmythsom.cfm
http://www.ific.org/foodinsight/2000/mj/biotechsafefi300.cfm

The internet is filled with lots of bullshit.


The first one is does not list who put the site up or funds it. It does have Doug Mosebar President, California Farm Bureau Federation. The head of a group who is suposed to be pro all farmers should not be hyping a site like that one.


Site to is the Council for Biotechnology Information.

2. Who makes up CBI?

The founding member companies are BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta and two trade associations, the Biotechnology Industry Organization and CropLife America.

Third site

Biotechnology Industry Organization

4th/5th site/link

not really much on biofoods debates but it does referance Homeland Security.

The last is funny because it is from 2000 and after this GMO promotional meating in Scotland is when many European Countries banned GMOs.


And when you compare prices of organic vs. Franken foods you leave off a couple of things which make crappy foods cheaper then wholesome real food. Organic is mostly local or regionally done by smaller farms. They often are required to actually pay real wages even to scary illegal Mexicans they don't have the government turning a blind eye to exploitation of workers as the big corporate farms do. And lets not forget farms substities which the big farms get pretty much every dime.

Then there is the fact that Target and Wal-Mart sell organic foods at higher prices because they know people will pay more. Most Farmers Markets are cheaper than big box stores. And the food is fresher. Costco sells organic foods at a good price (at least here in Denver they do). Why can they do that and the others can't?

even flow?

Cell phones (option) compared to a monopoly on our (yes you too) food supply? You have got to be kidding!


Twenty years (?) for food to be around is nary a generation of use to be called scientific study for me. The peanut is a super example of what the problem is and can become for the human race. In less then thirty years I've seen the PB&J sandwich go from a staple, to kids not being able to bring in a bag that had peanuts in it because some other human might die. I think that is a problem and most of the people should be able to admit that without any other proof except that allergy, and the time line since soya is a multitude longer then any test that Monsanto or any other chemical company runs. See the problem most people have is the experiment is still going on and our choices are getting slimmer and slimmer to avoid being the guinea pig.

I'm sure you lawyers are up on that pathetic case in Saskatchewan that Monsanto won by claiming a farmer who didn't want their seeds had stolen them from Monsanto when really the farmer didn't want anything to do with the seed and they blew into his farm and started to grow. And then a lawsuit to boot. Sure the corps and government care.

Next somebody will state how Monsanto can't believe the human species got this far without modified seeds! Yeah!