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?
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
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 ...
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."
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
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.
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?
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
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.
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
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.
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.
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?
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
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!
its partly because of the revolving door between the private sector and washington.
Look up the links on a guy like Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld, Searle, Monsanto
that should get you started.
one of monsanto's execs and their top lawyer both stepped down and took jobs at the fda when they were pushing their rbgh thru....
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
How is this any different than the selective breeding of crops that's been done for thousands of years since the time of Gregor Mendel?
one difference being for thousands of years the crops weren't genetically designed to be sterile and not make any seeds after a single crop...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
This is where the whole pro-gmo "benefit/risk" argument actually stops making sense. All you say seems sound but really isn't in reality :
1) we know (well at least we do in europe), from theory and observations, that gmo's, being better fitted for their environment, generally substitute to natural version in a few generations (1-2)
2) with plants, pollen, wind and insects, how would I know if what I believed to be natural crops are in fact interbred with gmos?
That's the first problem : with cell phones, I can choose not to use them if I fear for my brain, with gmo's I seldom have the choice and the more we use them the less I will have it.
My second problem is the whole "copyrighting" part. Start copyrighting genes (which, again, are easily transmittable from a gmo to a natural organism) and soon selected species will be owned by companies. This is, at least imo, a shitty idea.
I like the idea behind gmos, it would be interesting and probably useful to have them, especially since population numbers are not going down. But I'd like to see/read better constructed studies on their long-term effects before contaminating half of the world.
Farmers in India are committing suicide in record numbers due to GMO crops wrecking their crops. You gotta buy Monsanto's chemicals to grow their junk. Who cares if the food is larger when it is less nutritious? No buckets of poison sprayed on my food please....no brainer...
It's a bad situation on many levels.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If you eat organic food, you are being manipulated by marketing and false premises. Not to mention paying a premium for something that has no additional nutritional value.
Organic foods have caused deaths in the past... GM foods have not.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
If you eat organic food, you are being manipulated by marketing and false premises. Not to mention paying a premium for something that has no additional nutritional value.
Organic foods have caused deaths in the past... GM foods have not.
This sounds like a full load of bullshit. Show me how organic foods have killed people..
gimme a break...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
This sounds like a full load of bullshit. Show me how organic foods have killed people..
gimme a break...
E Coli
More of why organic foods are okay for a niche market (to fulfill the demand created by unsavory marketing tactics) but not for mass production to feed the planet:
Replacing all GM crops with organics would cause BILLIONS to go hungry. Our planet could only feed 4 billion people if GM crops were replaced with organic crops because the yield would be cut in half. Millions of acres of forest would have to be cut down to produce the added acreage.
The increased nitrogen inefficiently broadcasted over the farm would cause MORE pollution to our lakes, rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi would carry all the waste runoff. The current method of nitrogen fertilization (incorporation of anhydrous ammonia) results in the minimal amount of pollution.
Mind you I did study Agriculture Science in college in between drinking binges and weed naps. Not that I'm an expert but these are absolute facts that are taught by unbiased professors.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Wasn't GM foods suspected in the decline of the bee population. Where is that thread?
A team led by scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service, Pennsylvania State University and Columbia University has found an association between colony collapse disorder in honey bees and a honey bee virus called Israeli acute paralysis virus, according to a paper published in the journal Science recently.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
More of why organic foods are okay for a niche market (to fulfill the demand created by unsavory marketing tactics) but not for mass production to feed the planet:
Replacing all GM crops with organics would cause BILLIONS to go hungry. Our planet could only feed 4 billion people if GM crops were replaced with organic crops because the yield would be cut in half. Millions of acres of forest would have to be cut down to produce the added acreage.
The increased nitrogen inefficiently broadcasted over the farm would cause MORE pollution to our lakes, rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi would carry all the waste runoff. The current method of nitrogen fertilization (incorporation of anhydrous ammonia) results in the minimal amount of pollution.
Mind you I did study Agriculture Science in college in between drinking binges and weed naps. Not that I'm an expert but these are absolute facts that are taught by unbiased professors.
I don't buy that. Are you sure you don't work for Monsanto?
just a quick peek at what my govt has to say http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0029-e.htm "It is now recognized that organic farming has a very positive impact on the environment world-wide. It differs from conventional farming in that it reduces the amount of pollutants released into the environment and improves the organic and physical fertility of the soil.(8) Some studies also show that fields where organic farming is practised have greater biological diversity."
As well...GMO foods don't taste as good. Spraying poison on stuff you eat is not a particularly great idea in any situation, or the environment in general.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I don't buy that. Are you sure you don't work for Monsanto?
just a quick peek at what my govt has to say http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0029-e.htm "It is now recognized that organic farming has a very positive impact on the environment world-wide. It differs from conventional farming in that it reduces the amount of pollutants released into the environment and improves the organic and physical fertility of the soil.(8) Some studies also show that fields where organic farming is practised have greater biological diversity."
As well...GMO foods don't taste as good. Spraying poison on stuff you eat is not a particularly great idea in any situation, or the environment in general.
Are you familiar with Norman Borlaug?
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
don't forget that every single case of mad cow disease in America has been directly linked to canada. I wouldn't exactly trust canadian agricultural policy.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
don't forget that every single case of mad cow disease in America has been directly linked to canada. I wouldn't exactly trust canadian agricultural policy.
What you just said makes no sense. Organic vegetable farming practices is somehow comparable to the beef industry?
That's some pretty wild conjecture you just came up with.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I don't buy that. Are you sure you don't work for Monsanto?
just a quick peek at what my govt has to say http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0029-e.htm "It is now recognized that organic farming has a very positive impact on the environment world-wide. It differs from conventional farming in that it reduces the amount of pollutants released into the environment and improves the organic and physical fertility of the soil.(8) Some studies also show that fields where organic farming is practised have greater biological diversity."
As well...GMO foods don't taste as good. Spraying poison on stuff you eat is not a particularly great idea in any situation, or the environment in general.
What exactly don't you buy? No I don't work for Monsanto. I have been involved with agriculture for my entire life and frankly am starting to get pissed at all the misconceptions and conspiracy theories. I would be happy to talk more about the subject.... but I've gotta catch a flight to SANTA CRUZ mofo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peace
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
What exactly don't you buy? No I don't work for Monsanto. I have been involved with agriculture for my entire life and frankly am starting to get pissed at all the misconceptions and conspiracy theories. I would be happy to talk more about the subject.... but I've gotta catch a flight to SANTA CRUZ mofo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peace
Your claim thats organic farming is worse for the environment.
No conspiracy, just one low moral company do their best to claim complete monopoly of the worlds food supply in the name of the almighty dollar above all else.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
don't forget that every single case of mad cow disease in America has been directly linked to canada. I wouldn't exactly trust canadian agricultural policy.
That is right. Plus the fact that Canada is 2nd only to the US in the acerage of GM coverage of its lands.
Also the mad cow disastor in England the only farms found not to have mad cow were organic farms.
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
What exactly don't you buy? No I don't work for Monsanto. I have been involved with agriculture for my entire life and frankly am starting to get pissed at all the misconceptions and conspiracy theories. I would be happy to talk more about the subject.... but I've gotta catch a flight to SANTA CRUZ mofo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peace
Calling someone a MOFO and trying to cram poisens down our throats then saying peace?
Sounds like you do work for Monsonto or Dow?
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
Comments
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 ...
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."
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.
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?
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.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
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?
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
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!
one of monsanto's execs and their top lawyer both stepped down and took jobs at the fda when they were pushing their rbgh thru....
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
one difference being for thousands of years the crops weren't genetically designed to be sterile and not make any seeds after a single crop...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
1) we know (well at least we do in europe), from theory and observations, that gmo's, being better fitted for their environment, generally substitute to natural version in a few generations (1-2)
2) with plants, pollen, wind and insects, how would I know if what I believed to be natural crops are in fact interbred with gmos?
That's the first problem : with cell phones, I can choose not to use them if I fear for my brain, with gmo's I seldom have the choice and the more we use them the less I will have it.
My second problem is the whole "copyrighting" part. Start copyrighting genes (which, again, are easily transmittable from a gmo to a natural organism) and soon selected species will be owned by companies. This is, at least imo, a shitty idea.
I like the idea behind gmos, it would be interesting and probably useful to have them, especially since population numbers are not going down. But I'd like to see/read better constructed studies on their long-term effects before contaminating half of the world.
bad, bad argument.
And looking at what monsanto is doing, I doubt africans could afford gmos in the near future (tri therapy analogy comes to mind)
It's a bad situation on many levels.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If you eat organic food, you are being manipulated by marketing and false premises. Not to mention paying a premium for something that has no additional nutritional value.
Organic foods have caused deaths in the past... GM foods have not.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
This sounds like a full load of bullshit. Show me how organic foods have killed people..
gimme a break...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
E Coli
More of why organic foods are okay for a niche market (to fulfill the demand created by unsavory marketing tactics) but not for mass production to feed the planet:
Replacing all GM crops with organics would cause BILLIONS to go hungry. Our planet could only feed 4 billion people if GM crops were replaced with organic crops because the yield would be cut in half. Millions of acres of forest would have to be cut down to produce the added acreage.
The increased nitrogen inefficiently broadcasted over the farm would cause MORE pollution to our lakes, rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi would carry all the waste runoff. The current method of nitrogen fertilization (incorporation of anhydrous ammonia) results in the minimal amount of pollution.
Mind you I did study Agriculture Science in college in between drinking binges and weed naps. Not that I'm an expert but these are absolute facts that are taught by unbiased professors.
exactly! The big recalls on lettuce and spinach for e coli last year were mostly of organic varieties.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
A team led by scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service, Pennsylvania State University and Columbia University has found an association between colony collapse disorder in honey bees and a honey bee virus called Israeli acute paralysis virus, according to a paper published in the journal Science recently.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
I don't buy that. Are you sure you don't work for Monsanto?
just a quick peek at what my govt has to say
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0029-e.htm
"It is now recognized that organic farming has a very positive impact on the environment world-wide. It differs from conventional farming in that it reduces the amount of pollutants released into the environment and improves the organic and physical fertility of the soil.(8) Some studies also show that fields where organic farming is practised have greater biological diversity."
As well...GMO foods don't taste as good. Spraying poison on stuff you eat is not a particularly great idea in any situation, or the environment in general.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Are you familiar with Norman Borlaug?
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
don't forget that every single case of mad cow disease in America has been directly linked to canada. I wouldn't exactly trust canadian agricultural policy.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
What you just said makes no sense. Organic vegetable farming practices is somehow comparable to the beef industry?
That's some pretty wild conjecture you just came up with.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What exactly don't you buy? No I don't work for Monsanto. I have been involved with agriculture for my entire life and frankly am starting to get pissed at all the misconceptions and conspiracy theories. I would be happy to talk more about the subject.... but I've gotta catch a flight to SANTA CRUZ mofo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peace
Your claim thats organic farming is worse for the environment.
No conspiracy, just one low moral company do their best to claim complete monopoly of the worlds food supply in the name of the almighty dollar above all else.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That is right. Plus the fact that Canada is 2nd only to the US in the acerage of GM coverage of its lands.
Also the mad cow disastor in England the only farms found not to have mad cow were organic farms.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
Calling someone a MOFO and trying to cram poisens down our throats then saying peace?
Sounds like you do work for Monsonto or Dow?
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
The lettuce problem in Cali was determaind to have been caused by the run off from the farm next door.
People who actually farm GMOs can not eat the food they grow because it is too toxic. A fact that the USDA employee conventiantly left off.
(see my thread from yesterday)
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!