Did you go to UC Davis or Chico State? I have good freinds who were ag majors at Chico who work for the Ag department out of Phonex many years ago. Lost track of them.
No actually I went to University of Illinois then Western Illinois University. I got out of the Ag Science thing (Genetics and Hyrbridization Specialist) at age 24 (3 years ago) because unless you have a PhD you aren't gonna make over $50 or $60k.
That is where the studies of this idea that GMOs make more food. It just is not true.
The first objective of any Genetically Modified crop is to increase yield. Growers number one priority is to make more money and since Agriculture is a perfect competition (the grower has no say in the price he gets from the customer), Yield is the number one trait that any grower will seek. The Grower (farmer) will have his choice of numerous providers (including the "devil" Monsanto) who will try to sell him on their seed/fertizilizer/pesticide being the one that will be the best option for their yield. All other GM benefits (disease resistance, pest resistance, etc) are important but are secondary to the crop's yield.
If only for the fact that we are running out of cheap oil. And when that is gone so goes the GMO farms.
Oil is definitely an important variable. Oil drives the input cost of any crop more than anything else (fuel, fertilizers [NH3 especially], transportation of the crop). But I'm failing to see why oil price would cause farmers to go to organic farming. It may take slightly less oil to farm organically (still need fuel to plant, cultivate, harvest, till... as well as to transport the crop) but when your yield is cut in half or worse, and same with revenue, then that argument goes right out the window. Again, the ONLY reason I advocate GM foods is because the world simply cannot be fed with organic farming practices. Tertiary to this is my belief, as well as every credible (unbiased) scientist's belief, that GM crops are not harmful. I eat them every day and believe me, I do not want to cause harm to myself. I have absolutely no problem with people eating organic foods, I simply want people to be educated about the truth. This argument sometime reminds me of interviews from the 80s where people were asked where the food came from and their answer was "the grocery store." I just want people to be educated about agriculture since it has been part of my life since I was a kid.
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.
So... what practical solution do you all anti-GMO advocates propose? I hear a lot of complaining, a lot of worry, but no suggestions of remedy.
Legally speaking, in the US anyway, you have quite an uphill battle to fight. GMOs dominate the grocery industry, its market share grows a little each year, and there aren't any real signs (that I've seen, at least) indicating this trend is slowing or reversing.
And right now, the EU continues to hold out... but international treaties such as the Codex Alimentarius (as amended recently) demonstrate, on some level, what seems to me a movement towards the US approach (and, thus, away from the European approach).
Assuming as much, I have a few questions for you all:
1. 20 years from now, what do you honestly predict the status/impact of GM foods in the international community to be?
2. Practically speaking, assuming GMOs do pose some as-of-yet unsubstantiated high-level threat to either health or the environment, where do we go from here? How do you change the present status of GMOs? Can you? Do we pass legislation making the manufacture, sell, offer to sell, etc. of Genetically Modified food products illegal? Subject to fine? If so, based on what science (since there is, by no means, an objective consensus in the scientific community against GMOs)?
3. Do you believe we should work towards banning them outright, or do you believe the solution is in manufacturing GMOs more carefully/skillfully to better account for risks to health/environment?
....
Or is the dilemma, in your opinion, helpless and futile? Is the game over, and you all are just talking about how much it sucks that you've lost? Or is it Hillary v. Barack... pretty much over, but still a lot of people holding out for some long-shot hope? Or is it really a winnable fight from the anti-GMO standpoint?
Enlighten me...
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
And I stand by my point with respect to it. Technology is a fact of life in today's society... it's impact is felt dramatically in virtually every facet of modern human existence. But technology, both because of man's limited scientific understanding and because of technology's relative "newness," necessarily carries with it both promise and risk.
You can't get the promise and benefits w/out the risk. But obviously some technologies are more risky than others... some offer more promise than others. So we, as society, are left to determine how exactly is best to balance these factors.
Reading the article posted above, it's clear that 20 years ago (if these claims were around then), the cell phone industry might've been a controversial topic on Pearl Jam political boards. People would be blowing the whistle, saying that this industry is knowingly exposing people to toxic levels of radiation that scientists and certain studies have declared cause brain cancer.
And that's my point... we can take an alarmist approach to any technological advancement. We can say, "No pharmaceuticals... they could have profound, unforetold, detrimental effects on health!" We can say, "No cell phones or microwaves... they could have profound, unforetold, detrimental effects on health." And so on.
But from a practical standpoint, the government has to perform the role of gate-keeper... let some technology in, keep some out. It has to draw a line somewhere. And that's what it has done. The EPA has strict regulations regarding GMOs (field test studies, third-party environmental impact reports, etc). These regulations were adopted subject to notice-and-comment guidelines in the APA, and anyone was free to chime in as to what the process entailed. Tons of scientific evidence is submitted, for and against, and the EPA is left to decide, in accordance w/ its statutory guidelines, whether the GMO has met its burden of proving itself "safe" for consumption and development. Similarly, the FDA requires extensive clinical trials and scientific data before a GMO food can hit the market. GMOs are not typically considered GRAS (generally recognized as safe), so the burden is especially lofty. The ones that make it through the FDA and the EPA are not given some free pass. They have satisfied a high burden of proof/production the gov't has determined is necessary to make it to the market. The idea that GMOs are some sort of "Franken food" unsafe for consumption is unsubstantiated. And the burden is no longer on GMOs (in America) to demonstrate their safety... they've met that burden... it is now on GMO opponents to demonstrate that the ones on the market are unsafe. And they have failed, and continue to fail, in doing so.
Shit, I gotta run.
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
I agree... one can find support on the internet for any claim, regardless of merit. The links I posted a few pages back (at the request of someone wishing to see a "link" supporting the pro-GM stance) I didn't post under the guise of a neutral authority... I googled something like "are GMO foods safe?" and copied the URLs of the websites arguing they are. I even said something to the effect of, "You can find support for anything on the internet." And as a general rule I don't put much stock into much of what's on the web. That said... here's something from the FDA's site that gives what I believe to be a fairly good overview of the market share, safety issues, and labeling status.
Regardless, no one has answered my question: WHAT DO YOU WANT DONE ABOUT IT? (Disclaimer: Caps used to draw attention to the inquiry, not to convey frustration, anger, etc.) You're against GMOs. I get it. You think they're unsafe for consumption and harmful to the environment. You have your reasons and you have your support. Fine. But what's the next step passed complaining about the situation and arguing the merits of your claim? What is the remedy/solution? What, to use legalese, is your "prayer for relief?" What do you want done about it (practically speaking), how do you intend to go about getting that done (is it even possible?), and where do you see the food industry (again, practically speaking... not ideally) 20 years from now?
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
BILLIONS of people would starve if all gm crops were switched to organics because of the huge yield loss that is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN, not in theory but in practice.
First - I'm pretty sure that human waste is [as of yet] still not legal for use on food crops. Correct me if i am wrong, but that was the case when i volunteered on a Permaculture\Biointensive farm for two years back in 2000ish.
Now, as for the quote:
This absolutely proven business. Do these studies factor in the "absolutely proven" loss\degradation of topsoil that occurs with "conventional" agriculture? Because i'm pretty sure it is a scientific fact that intensive fertilization with nitrogen rich petrochemical fertilizers eventualy kills off most\all soil life, thus rendering the soil worthless for farming.
Also, and i don't have the time now to go digging around for these studies (but i will at some point), i have seen similar studies that show that when sustianable agriculture is done properly (ie biointensive beds, covercrops, permaculture practices, IPM, etc) that the caloric yield per unit of land is equal to or execeeds that of "conventional" agriculture.
The only caveat i am aware of, is that this is a much more LABOR intensive process.
And when you say "yield loss", again, i don't think you are counting the eventual loss of productivity of entire tract of land under conventional agriculture (i've seen what this soil becomes, it ain't pretty) ... and you certainly aren't bothering to mention ENERGY efficiency. The amount of "petro-calories" needed to produce one calorie of food with "conventional" agriculture are astronomicaly higher than those needed with most any form of sustainable farming.
"Organic" farming is a stop gap measure, which only addresses (in theory) nutritional value ... it does little to address the systemic problems with the agriculture production & distribution system, which is still very much an energy intensive and non-local operation. And it is still by and large done with monocropping. :(
Anyhow.
Let me know.
Clearly, you are an Ag major or something, so i'm the David in this battle.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Regardless, no one has answered my question: WHAT DO YOU WANT DONE ABOUT IT?
A good first step would be a return to honest labeling.
Remember perfect consumers (and perfect markets) only exist where there is perfect information.
The GMO lobby has gone out of its way to ensure that consumers do NOT have access to label information telling them if any GMOs are in their food.
In FACT, there are actualy now laws on the book PROHIBITING producers from including such information!
WHY !?!
Start by requiring ALL producers to specify any GMO content in their foods, and thus allowing consumers to choose wether or not to consume these items.
You realize that now with the RBGH labels on milk, the use of RBGH in milk is almost disappearing? Consumers have voted with their wallets for organic milk over regular milk, and Non-RBGH milk over RBGH milk.
Unfortunately the Monsantos of the world are fighting back with a furry, and if they get their way there will be a 100% reversal of this trend, with ALL dairy cows being required to receive RBGH injections. :(
If you truly think that getting producers to label their goods with SPECIFIC GMO CONTENT is not possible or is somehow cost-prohibitive, we may as well give up. I laugh at the contention, considering just how much information is already required on labels ... SURELY sourcing your products to find GMO content is NOT the straw that broke the camels back? :rolleyes:
What do you think?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I agree... one can find support on the internet for any claim, regardless of merit. The links I posted a few pages back (at the request of someone wishing to see a "link" supporting the pro-GM stance) I didn't post under the guise of a neutral authority... I googled something like "are GMO foods safe?" and copied the URLs of the websites arguing they are. I even said something to the effect of, "You can find support for anything on the internet." And as a general rule I don't put much stock into much of what's on the web. That said... here's something from the FDA's site that gives what I believe to be a fairly good overview of the market share, safety issues, and labeling status.
Regardless, no one has answered my question: WHAT DO YOU WANT DONE ABOUT IT? (Disclaimer: Caps used to draw attention to the inquiry, not to convey frustration, anger, etc.) You're against GMOs. I get it. You think they're unsafe for consumption and harmful to the environment. You have your reasons and you have your support. Fine. But what's the next step passed complaining about the situation and arguing the merits of your claim? What is the remedy/solution? What, to use legalese, is your "prayer for relief?" What do you want done about it (practically speaking), how do you intend to go about getting that done (is it even possible?), and where do you see the food industry (again, practically speaking... not ideally) 20 years from now?
The food industry the way it is today will be over soon. There just in not enouph oil to run it the way we do today. It will be localized or we will starve. No amount of GMOS will save us.
People need to drink water too and GMOs suck the life out of all the water around them. From the water needed to water the plants to the contaminatied ground water from the heavy use of synthetics that are needed to keep the plants alive.
Look to what is happening at the mouth of the Mississippi River, its dieing from heavy amounts of posions from farm run off.
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
If GMOs are so great why doesnt Monsanto and others Label there foods with huge labels spouting how great they are?
Why do they need to hide the fact that GMOs are in some foods?
I would like to see GM foods labeled esp all fruits and vegetables. They all have stickers on them as it is, so it should be easy enough.
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.
A good first step would be a return to honest labeling.
...
In FACT, there are actualy now laws on the book PROHIBITING producers from including such information!
WHY !?!
Well, I'll give you the legal answer: (1) Changing labeling requirements costs money (more than you'd think -- when one of the immunology labs we represent was required to change its immunoassay "labels," I was shocked to see the estimates). The FDA, USDA, and EPA have approved certain GMO foods, which have passed rigorous safety criteria. So, the thinking goes, why should the companies making GMOs bear the financial burden of extra labeling? It's the organic food customers that want the two foods (non-GMO vs. GMO) distinguished... so shouldn't the costs fall on the non-GMO foods?
(2) Let's be honest... by and large, the American population is pretty stupid. (If you disagree with me on this, check out the record sales of Justin Timberlake's last album, the presidential election results from 2000 and 2004, or the ratings for either Flavor of Love or Sean Hannity's show). As such, the FDA and USDA are worried (and rightly so, I'd say) that requiring GMO foods to be labeled, "Product of Genetic Engineering," or something similarly worded, would subject the GMO products to unreasonable prejudice in the market. It would pose, again to use legalese, "an undue burden" on the GMO manufacturers. People who don't know anything about GMOs may nevertheless (incorrectly, in my opinion) be biased against the food. The Agencies' position is that this would give an unfair advantage to non-GMO foods, or an unfair disadvantage to the GMO foods. If both are equally nutritious, equally safe, and equally environmentally sound -- which these Agencies have determined them to be -- why should one product be discriminated against over the other? You've gotta look at it from the Agencies' perspective here. Once they've determined these things are 100% safe and healthy, how could they justify requiring separate labeling for it... especially when it has been demonstrated that such separate labeling could materially mislead consumers into believing, erroneously, that GMOs are somehow less safe than non-GMOs? Again, don't look at it from the standpoint of someone with your beliefs... look at it from the standpoint of the Agency having determined them to be safe.
(3) The USDA and FDA have essentially two routes to choose from when it comes to labeling requirements. They can base labeling on (1) the process by which the food is made, or (2) the end product. Long ago, the US decided to go with approach (2). Europe went with (1). Practically what this means is that how the food is manufactured is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant in the US. It's the end product that matters. If the end product is shown to be safe and nutritious, then how it was made isn't relevant.
Gotta get to a meeting.
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
Uh.
We are talking about stuff that is demonstrated to have the potential to actualy stay active IN YOUR STOMACH and become ACTIVE DNA within the bacteria INSIDE YOU.
Could you post a link to support this? Sounds a lot like scare mongering crap.
A good first step would be a return to honest labeling.
Remember perfect consumers (and perfect markets) only exist where there is perfect information.
The GMO lobby has gone out of its way to ensure that consumers do NOT have access to label information telling them if any GMOs are in their food.
In FACT, there are actualy now laws on the book PROHIBITING producers from including such information!
WHY !?!
Because most consumers in the US such as your self are so porely educated in science that you can not make an intelligent decison on the subject of GM crops.
In July 2002, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) put the results of new research on its website which showed that genetically modified DNA material moves out of GM food and into human gut bacteria. These were the result of the first known human trial of GM food, carried out by the University of Newcastle and they disproved claims by the biotechnology industry. Although the findings were surprising and some scientists expressed concerns, the FSA denied that the study was significant. The research was published in Nature Biotechnology in January 2004.
We believe that in the absence of research showing otherwise, this means that the safety of GM food is in doubt; the approval procedures for GMOs are inadequate; and that the FSA is not taking a precautionary, science-based approach to the safety of GM foods or adequately informing the public or Government of the uncertainties.
By the way,
i wasn't being a fear monger, and i was't being insulting to anyone, why must you? It makes you out quite the [censored].
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Because most consumers in the US such as your self are so porely educated in science that you can not make an intelligent decison on the subject of GM crops.
Okay so this study is focused on the transfer of a transgene "epsps" that the study itself says is "from GM soya ".
And then, after rationalizing that the amount of this DNA which survives is seemingly trivial, it says first:
"Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments." [probably because every prepared food you fucking buy at the store has GM Soy in it, you dick fucks]
AND THEN
"As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment."
WELL HOW THE FUCK DID IT GET THERE YOU FUCKING SHIT HEADS?
Seriously.
Can you fucking explain this?
They do a study to understand how this transgene gets from GM Soya in to the gut. They ADMIT ... they fucking ADMIT that the gut already had GM soy in it ... but then the level "did not increase" during the expirement ... they conclude that it did not get there from the feeding expiriment.
THEN HOW THE FUCK DID IT GET THERE?
From your expiriment or not, GENES FROM GM FOOD GOT IN TO THE GUT.
What, did this guy have a really deep conversation with a fucking soy plant, and then they fell in love and had a "gene synthesis" symbiotic love in?
WTF?
Get real.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Because most consumers in the US such as your self are so porely educated in science that you can not make an intelligent decison on the subject of GM crops.
Hey this "porely educated" bloke never did get back to me.
bump.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
1. 20 years from now, what do you honestly predict the status/impact of GM foods in the international community to be?
I think everyone is aware that in 20 years we'll all be eating gmo's and that we'll have salmons weighing 2,5 tons a piece. The problem is that no one asked us the citizens/consumers our opinion. No one thought :
"hey you know what, since gmo crops will easily contaminate natural crops, maybe we should do inside tests before we go putting them everywhere in the nature. That way not only can we do tests on the nocivity of this new technology but we can leave the choice to the consumer. And since the key word really is choice maybe we can notify on products if there are gmos inside".
I think everyone is aware that in 20 years we'll all be eating gmo's and that we'll have salmons weighing 2,5 tons a piece. The problem is that no one asked us the citizens/consumers our opinion. No one thought :
"hey you know what, since gmo crops will easily contaminate natural crops, maybe we should do inside tests before we go putting them everywhere in the nature. That way not only can we do tests on the nocivity of this new technology but we can leave the choice to the consumer. And since the key word really is choice maybe we can notify on products if there are gmos inside".
It's really common decency and logic.
First, as a matter of science... citizens and consumers, on average, aren't qualified to weigh in. Especially in this scientifically-retarded country (retarded as far as the general population goes anyway).
Second, as a matter of practicality... it simply isn't feasible to put every regulatory question up for vote. That's why our elected officials are vested with the authority to create and maintain agencies - the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA in this case. They can employ PhD-holding scientists in the field to weigh the risks and benefits and make informed, educated decisions that members of Congress or the Executive branch don't have the comprehension or the time to adequately address.
Third, there are *extensive* "inside tests" done before any new technology made for consumption is allowed to even reach human clinical trials.
Fourth, besides being just in-general scientifically incompetent, the American population also happens to be spectacularly prone to being duped by fear-mongering political campaigns. If every decision was left to popular vote, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites or go to school with whites. At least in most of the Southern states. Nothing progressive would ever get done -- because people, especially uneducated people (the majority of the country), are naturally biased against change and, in particular, unfamiliar technology.
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
First, as a matter of science... citizens and consumers, on average, aren't qualified to weigh in. Especially in this scientifically-retarded country (retarded as far as the general population goes anyway).
Yeah, but no. I don't think anyone is asked to interpret the results of the tests done on gmo. But at least give us the choice to eat food with or without this. Just as we have the choice to use cell phones, or not.
it simply isn't feasible to put every regulatory question up for vote. [...] They can employ PhD-holding scientists in the field to weigh the risks and benefits and make informed, educated decisions that members of Congress or the Executive branch don't have the comprehension or the time to adequately address.
True, and this is the case for every other country. But things started to move in europe (for example) because this subject was begining to be controversial. The government is the expression of the people's choices, the people should have the right to raise some objections. Again, it's a simple question of choice.
Third, there are *extensive* "inside tests" done before any new technology made for consumption is allowed to even reach human clinical trials.
Which are generally well controlled for drugs. This doesn't seem to be the case for food :
1 - the moratory decided in europe has been decided on the basis of severe inconsistencies in the inside tests presented by monsanto.
2 - for gmo we're talking about long term effects of modified proteins (you know, like the prion and mad cow disease), this should ask for 10 years of tests not 6 months to have conclusive results. I know this isn't practically feasible but we should at least be cautious before we understand all the implications. Simple common sense.
If every decision was left to popular vote, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites or go to school with whites. At least in most of the Southern states. Nothing progressive would ever get done -- because people, especially uneducated people (the majority of the country), are naturally biased against change and, in particular, unfamiliar technology.
I'm sorry but I disagree with your comparison here :
Interracial marriages = human rights = moral questions that are as old as humanity. Human rights generally do not have consequences on your health.
GMO = biotechnology with less than 20 years of feedback. All I'm saying is that we should think a little about it before rushing in and :
1 - copyrighting every living organism that is actually found in nature
2 - feeding everyone with thing we know CAN be potentially dangerous
Second, as a matter of practicality... it simply isn't feasible to put every regulatory question up for vote. That's why our elected officials are vested with the authority to create and maintain agencies - the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA in this case. They can employ PhD-holding scientists in the field to weigh the risks and benefits and make informed, educated decisions that members of Congress or the Executive branch don't have the comprehension or the time to adequately address.
as mentioned at the beginning of this thread - this is where it gets shady ... these agencies are run by the corporate elite who aim to promote their ties to industry ... look at who's been appointed the heads of these agencies in the last while ... they have been compromised - no longer independent and serving the public ... they only work to quicken the process to market ...
But at least give us the choice to eat food with or without this. Just as we have the choice to use cell phones, or not.
No one has ever held a gun to my head and ordered me to eat GMOs. I understand non-GMO foods are rare and expensive compared to their counterparts, but that doesn't prevent you from choosing to eat non-GMO foods. I get frustrated with how difficult and expensive it is to eat healthy where I live... go to a restaurant, order something like a turkey sandwich and you have to request that the bread isn't saturated w/ butter, the sandwich isn't covered in mayo, the bacon be left off, the side of fries is replaced w/ non-buttered vegetables, etc. (And most of the time they still fuck it up). Shopping for groceries is difficult as well. Low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-refined-sugar foods are often twice as expensive and require you to search for twice as long. But eating well is a priority to me, and I recognize that in a country full of fat, unhealthy people, I'm going to have to bear the costs of my lifestyle. It's inconvenient and frustrating, sure, but banning cheap, unhealthy foods is never going to work. If, however, there are enough health-conscious people like myself shopping for healthy alternatives, the market will respond. And that's happening now... KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, etc. are all following the lead of Subway. Still serve shitty food, but they recognize this growing demographic of people who actually care about their health and they realize they can make a profit there if the play to our interests.
The same approach applies to non-GMOs. If there is credibility to your argument, organic producers will thrive and the market will reflect this. If there are cross-pollinating problems (mixing GMOs w/ non-GMO acreage), then that can give rise to a cause of action against the GMO company. Prove negligence and you can recover for damages, perhaps even punitive damages if the negligence is gross.
But making safe and nutritious GMOs illegal isn't the proper approach. In my opinion at least. You talk about choice, but most anti-GMO advocates don't want choice -- they want only non-GMOs on the market.
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
True, and this is the case for every other country. But things started to move in europe (for example) because this subject was begining to be controversial. The government is the expression of the people's choices, the people should have the right to raise some objections. Again, it's a simple question of choice.
Come on. You're telling me that if there was an enormous outcry in America against transgenic crops, the government wouldn't listen? The Washington politicians care about one thing -- getting re-elected -- and if the American population was as anti-GMO as the European populations seem to be, it would be more of a political battleground. But that isn't the case. The anti-GMO segment is a relatively small one (compared to, say, the Pro-Life segment or the Gay Marriage segment). The government here is the "expression of the people's choices"... the people here just don't care as much about transgenic foods. If they did, I would have to wait in long lines at the local organic food store. I don't. Everyone is at Wal-Mart buying so-called "Frankenfood."
If you disagree w/ something the American gov't is doing - mobilize and elect a different Congressman. If you can't get enough people to vote in an Organic Food enthusiast, then I believe that's a reflection of the country's wishes -- not of the gov't acting autonomously and w/ disregard to the people's preferences.
Which are generally well controlled for drugs. This doesn't seem to be the case for food :
If a company like Monsanto has the clout to compromise the ethics of US regulatory agencies like the FDA, EPA, and USDA and get dangerous foods allowed onto the market... do you honestly think that Big Pharma companies can't do the same? Big Pharma is a much, much bigger, wealthier, and more influential industry than Ag Biotech.
2 - for gmo we're talking about long term effects of modified proteins ... this should ask for 10 years of tests not 6 months to have conclusive results. I know this isn't practically feasible but we should at least be cautious before we understand all the implications. Simple common sense.
You're right - it isn't practically feasible to keep potentially very beneficial products off the market for 10 years for long-term safety testing. Can you imagine? But even if we did... then, say, after 10 years the GMO foods in question prove safe. Then what? Then allow them onto the market? Yeah right. The anti-GMO people would demand further, longer-term testing: "Sure they're safe after 10 years... but who knows what detrimental effects they'll have after 100 years?"
This is why I brought up the cell phone thing a while back - an admittedly far-from-perfect analogy. But my point is -- an alarmist attitude can be adopted to prevent essentially any new technology from entering the market. (No one was worried that cell phones could cause immediate brain cancer... the concern involved the long-term, unstudy-able effects). So does that mean we should be flippant w/ legitimate safety concerns? Absolutely not. But we are gong to have to draw the line somewhere... and that's what the Gov't has done. The burden of proof is initially on the GMO company to demonstrate that no substantial risks to health or environment are posed by their product. Once they do this, the burden shifts to GMO's opposition to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a substantial risk. And this is why GMOs are everywhere -- the GMO companies has met their burden of proof, their opposition hasn't.
Interracial marriages = human rights = moral questions that are as old as humanity. Human rights generally do not have consequences on your health.
GMO = biotechnology with less than 20 years of feedback.
Well, I'll begin by conceding that I didn't pick the best example. But I do think that a case can be made that access to safe, affordable food IS a human right. I also think that, at the time when interracial marriage was disallowed, advocates for that status-quo argued that mixing the races could have detrimental effects on society (long-term incompatible genetic exchanges, loss of culture, etc). Regardless, I won't belabor the point. I should've posed a better analogy. My point, however, was that the American people are largely uneducated and prone to prejudice against things they don't understand or aren't familiar with. If we leave policy decisions soley to direct popular vote, nothing will progress.
All I'm saying is that we should think a little about it before rushing in and :
1 - copyrighting every living organism that is actually found in nature
It's really just semantics, but in America you can't copyright living organisms. Copyrights are primarily involved with works of art (books, music, etc). Patents are what you're thinking of (I believe) -- and it should be noted that although you can get a patent on any new, useful, non-obvious man-made thing (including living organisms), patents only last for 20 years. After the patent expires, it's designated to the public and anyone can copy it free of restraint. And you can't get a patent or a copyright on "living organisms ... found in nature." You have to actually have a hand in engineering it in a "new, useful, and non-obvious" way.
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
this is where it gets shady ... these agencies are run by the corporate elite who aim to promote their ties to industry ... look at who's been appointed the heads of these agencies in the last while ... they have been compromised - no longer independent and serving the public ... they only work to quicken the process to market ...
Heads of agencies are appointed either by the President w/ consent of the Senate or by the Houses of Congress. We elect both. Organize and get a non-GMO Congressman from your state in office. Lead the way.
Heads of agencies are appointed either by the President w/ consent of the Senate or by the Houses of Congress. We elect both. Organize and get a non-GMO Congressman from your state in office. Lead the way.
fda: look who he replaced and each subsequent commissioner ...
epa: "Johnson is currently attempting to block the efforts of 17 states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy" ... that pretty much sums it up for that guy ...
usda: really, what qualifies this guy to head the USDA?
Comments
Fantastic thanks for sharing
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
No actually I went to University of Illinois then Western Illinois University. I got out of the Ag Science thing (Genetics and Hyrbridization Specialist) at age 24 (3 years ago) because unless you have a PhD you aren't gonna make over $50 or $60k.
The first objective of any Genetically Modified crop is to increase yield. Growers number one priority is to make more money and since Agriculture is a perfect competition (the grower has no say in the price he gets from the customer), Yield is the number one trait that any grower will seek. The Grower (farmer) will have his choice of numerous providers (including the "devil" Monsanto) who will try to sell him on their seed/fertizilizer/pesticide being the one that will be the best option for their yield. All other GM benefits (disease resistance, pest resistance, etc) are important but are secondary to the crop's yield.
Oil is definitely an important variable. Oil drives the input cost of any crop more than anything else (fuel, fertilizers [NH3 especially], transportation of the crop). But I'm failing to see why oil price would cause farmers to go to organic farming. It may take slightly less oil to farm organically (still need fuel to plant, cultivate, harvest, till... as well as to transport the crop) but when your yield is cut in half or worse, and same with revenue, then that argument goes right out the window. Again, the ONLY reason I advocate GM foods is because the world simply cannot be fed with organic farming practices. Tertiary to this is my belief, as well as every credible (unbiased) scientist's belief, that GM crops are not harmful. I eat them every day and believe me, I do not want to cause harm to myself. I have absolutely no problem with people eating organic foods, I simply want people to be educated about the truth. This argument sometime reminds me of interviews from the 80s where people were asked where the food came from and their answer was "the grocery store." I just want people to be educated about agriculture since it has been part of my life since I was a kid.
Thanks. The Santa Cruz show was amazing. I just wish I could make it to more shows!!!
lol...
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)
(")_(")
Legally speaking, in the US anyway, you have quite an uphill battle to fight. GMOs dominate the grocery industry, its market share grows a little each year, and there aren't any real signs (that I've seen, at least) indicating this trend is slowing or reversing.
And right now, the EU continues to hold out... but international treaties such as the Codex Alimentarius (as amended recently) demonstrate, on some level, what seems to me a movement towards the US approach (and, thus, away from the European approach).
Assuming as much, I have a few questions for you all:
1. 20 years from now, what do you honestly predict the status/impact of GM foods in the international community to be?
2. Practically speaking, assuming GMOs do pose some as-of-yet unsubstantiated high-level threat to either health or the environment, where do we go from here? How do you change the present status of GMOs? Can you? Do we pass legislation making the manufacture, sell, offer to sell, etc. of Genetically Modified food products illegal? Subject to fine? If so, based on what science (since there is, by no means, an objective consensus in the scientific community against GMOs)?
3. Do you believe we should work towards banning them outright, or do you believe the solution is in manufacturing GMOs more carefully/skillfully to better account for risks to health/environment?
....
Or is the dilemma, in your opinion, helpless and futile? Is the game over, and you all are just talking about how much it sucks that you've lost? Or is it Hillary v. Barack... pretty much over, but still a lot of people holding out for some long-shot hope? Or is it really a winnable fight from the anti-GMO standpoint?
Enlighten me...
I had just came across this story when I brought up the cell phone analogy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html?r=RSS
And I stand by my point with respect to it. Technology is a fact of life in today's society... it's impact is felt dramatically in virtually every facet of modern human existence. But technology, both because of man's limited scientific understanding and because of technology's relative "newness," necessarily carries with it both promise and risk.
You can't get the promise and benefits w/out the risk. But obviously some technologies are more risky than others... some offer more promise than others. So we, as society, are left to determine how exactly is best to balance these factors.
Reading the article posted above, it's clear that 20 years ago (if these claims were around then), the cell phone industry might've been a controversial topic on Pearl Jam political boards. People would be blowing the whistle, saying that this industry is knowingly exposing people to toxic levels of radiation that scientists and certain studies have declared cause brain cancer.
And that's my point... we can take an alarmist approach to any technological advancement. We can say, "No pharmaceuticals... they could have profound, unforetold, detrimental effects on health!" We can say, "No cell phones or microwaves... they could have profound, unforetold, detrimental effects on health." And so on.
But from a practical standpoint, the government has to perform the role of gate-keeper... let some technology in, keep some out. It has to draw a line somewhere. And that's what it has done. The EPA has strict regulations regarding GMOs (field test studies, third-party environmental impact reports, etc). These regulations were adopted subject to notice-and-comment guidelines in the APA, and anyone was free to chime in as to what the process entailed. Tons of scientific evidence is submitted, for and against, and the EPA is left to decide, in accordance w/ its statutory guidelines, whether the GMO has met its burden of proving itself "safe" for consumption and development. Similarly, the FDA requires extensive clinical trials and scientific data before a GMO food can hit the market. GMOs are not typically considered GRAS (generally recognized as safe), so the burden is especially lofty. The ones that make it through the FDA and the EPA are not given some free pass. They have satisfied a high burden of proof/production the gov't has determined is necessary to make it to the market. The idea that GMOs are some sort of "Franken food" unsafe for consumption is unsubstantiated. And the burden is no longer on GMOs (in America) to demonstrate their safety... they've met that burden... it is now on GMO opponents to demonstrate that the ones on the market are unsafe. And they have failed, and continue to fail, in doing so.
Shit, I gotta run.
Yeilds:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/513110/
(PDF file)
http://www.bugwood.org/arthropod2005/vol1/6c.pdf
health
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Organic-is-healthier-3A-Kiwis-prove-that-green-is-good-4619-1/
from an not so netural source but a recap of the problems of GMO farming
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/31/105543/484
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_food.html
Regardless, no one has answered my question: WHAT DO YOU WANT DONE ABOUT IT? (Disclaimer: Caps used to draw attention to the inquiry, not to convey frustration, anger, etc.) You're against GMOs. I get it. You think they're unsafe for consumption and harmful to the environment. You have your reasons and you have your support. Fine. But what's the next step passed complaining about the situation and arguing the merits of your claim? What is the remedy/solution? What, to use legalese, is your "prayer for relief?" What do you want done about it (practically speaking), how do you intend to go about getting that done (is it even possible?), and where do you see the food industry (again, practically speaking... not ideally) 20 years from now?
First - I'm pretty sure that human waste is [as of yet] still not legal for use on food crops. Correct me if i am wrong, but that was the case when i volunteered on a Permaculture\Biointensive farm for two years back in 2000ish.
Now, as for the quote:
This absolutely proven business. Do these studies factor in the "absolutely proven" loss\degradation of topsoil that occurs with "conventional" agriculture? Because i'm pretty sure it is a scientific fact that intensive fertilization with nitrogen rich petrochemical fertilizers eventualy kills off most\all soil life, thus rendering the soil worthless for farming.
Also, and i don't have the time now to go digging around for these studies (but i will at some point), i have seen similar studies that show that when sustianable agriculture is done properly (ie biointensive beds, covercrops, permaculture practices, IPM, etc) that the caloric yield per unit of land is equal to or execeeds that of "conventional" agriculture.
The only caveat i am aware of, is that this is a much more LABOR intensive process.
And when you say "yield loss", again, i don't think you are counting the eventual loss of productivity of entire tract of land under conventional agriculture (i've seen what this soil becomes, it ain't pretty) ... and you certainly aren't bothering to mention ENERGY efficiency. The amount of "petro-calories" needed to produce one calorie of food with "conventional" agriculture are astronomicaly higher than those needed with most any form of sustainable farming.
"Organic" farming is a stop gap measure, which only addresses (in theory) nutritional value ... it does little to address the systemic problems with the agriculture production & distribution system, which is still very much an energy intensive and non-local operation. And it is still by and large done with monocropping. :(
Anyhow.
Let me know.
Clearly, you are an Ag major or something, so i'm the David in this battle.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
A good first step would be a return to honest labeling.
Remember perfect consumers (and perfect markets) only exist where there is perfect information.
The GMO lobby has gone out of its way to ensure that consumers do NOT have access to label information telling them if any GMOs are in their food.
In FACT, there are actualy now laws on the book PROHIBITING producers from including such information!
WHY !?!
Start by requiring ALL producers to specify any GMO content in their foods, and thus allowing consumers to choose wether or not to consume these items.
You realize that now with the RBGH labels on milk, the use of RBGH in milk is almost disappearing? Consumers have voted with their wallets for organic milk over regular milk, and Non-RBGH milk over RBGH milk.
Unfortunately the Monsantos of the world are fighting back with a furry, and if they get their way there will be a 100% reversal of this trend, with ALL dairy cows being required to receive RBGH injections. :(
If you truly think that getting producers to label their goods with SPECIFIC GMO CONTENT is not possible or is somehow cost-prohibitive, we may as well give up. I laugh at the contention, considering just how much information is already required on labels ... SURELY sourcing your products to find GMO content is NOT the straw that broke the camels back? :rolleyes:
What do you think?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Why do they need to hide the fact that GMOs are in some foods?
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
The food industry the way it is today will be over soon. There just in not enouph oil to run it the way we do today. It will be localized or we will starve. No amount of GMOS will save us.
People need to drink water too and GMOs suck the life out of all the water around them. From the water needed to water the plants to the contaminatied ground water from the heavy use of synthetics that are needed to keep the plants alive.
Look to what is happening at the mouth of the Mississippi River, its dieing from heavy amounts of posions from farm run off.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
Because you, the consumer, are an idiot and cannot make an educated, informed decisions.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
I would like to see GM foods labeled esp all fruits and vegetables. They all have stickers on them as it is, so it should be easy enough.
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)
(")_(")
Well, I'll give you the legal answer: (1) Changing labeling requirements costs money (more than you'd think -- when one of the immunology labs we represent was required to change its immunoassay "labels," I was shocked to see the estimates). The FDA, USDA, and EPA have approved certain GMO foods, which have passed rigorous safety criteria. So, the thinking goes, why should the companies making GMOs bear the financial burden of extra labeling? It's the organic food customers that want the two foods (non-GMO vs. GMO) distinguished... so shouldn't the costs fall on the non-GMO foods?
(2) Let's be honest... by and large, the American population is pretty stupid. (If you disagree with me on this, check out the record sales of Justin Timberlake's last album, the presidential election results from 2000 and 2004, or the ratings for either Flavor of Love or Sean Hannity's show). As such, the FDA and USDA are worried (and rightly so, I'd say) that requiring GMO foods to be labeled, "Product of Genetic Engineering," or something similarly worded, would subject the GMO products to unreasonable prejudice in the market. It would pose, again to use legalese, "an undue burden" on the GMO manufacturers. People who don't know anything about GMOs may nevertheless (incorrectly, in my opinion) be biased against the food. The Agencies' position is that this would give an unfair advantage to non-GMO foods, or an unfair disadvantage to the GMO foods. If both are equally nutritious, equally safe, and equally environmentally sound -- which these Agencies have determined them to be -- why should one product be discriminated against over the other? You've gotta look at it from the Agencies' perspective here. Once they've determined these things are 100% safe and healthy, how could they justify requiring separate labeling for it... especially when it has been demonstrated that such separate labeling could materially mislead consumers into believing, erroneously, that GMOs are somehow less safe than non-GMOs? Again, don't look at it from the standpoint of someone with your beliefs... look at it from the standpoint of the Agency having determined them to be safe.
(3) The USDA and FDA have essentially two routes to choose from when it comes to labeling requirements. They can base labeling on (1) the process by which the food is made, or (2) the end product. Long ago, the US decided to go with approach (2). Europe went with (1). Practically what this means is that how the food is manufactured is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant in the US. It's the end product that matters. If the end product is shown to be safe and nutritious, then how it was made isn't relevant.
Gotta get to a meeting.
Thanks I appreciate your kind words.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
http://www.soygrowers.com/biotech/dispelling.pdf
Could you post a link to support this? Sounds a lot like scare mongering crap.
Because most consumers in the US such as your self are so porely educated in science that you can not make an intelligent decison on the subject of GM crops.
University of Newcastle Research on the Transfer of DNA from GM Food Into Bacteria in the Human Gut
By the way,
i wasn't being a fear monger, and i was't being insulting to anyone, why must you? It makes you out quite the [censored].
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Man what the fuck?
Go [censored].
Here is one i just love:
Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract
Okay so this study is focused on the transfer of a transgene "epsps" that the study itself says is "from GM soya ".
And then, after rationalizing that the amount of this DNA which survives is seemingly trivial, it says first:
"Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments." [probably because every prepared food you fucking buy at the store has GM Soy in it, you dick fucks]
AND THEN
"As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment."
WELL HOW THE FUCK DID IT GET THERE YOU FUCKING SHIT HEADS?
Seriously.
Can you fucking explain this?
They do a study to understand how this transgene gets from GM Soya in to the gut. They ADMIT ... they fucking ADMIT that the gut already had GM soy in it ... but then the level "did not increase" during the expirement ... they conclude that it did not get there from the feeding expiriment.
THEN HOW THE FUCK DID IT GET THERE?
From your expiriment or not, GENES FROM GM FOOD GOT IN TO THE GUT.
What, did this guy have a really deep conversation with a fucking soy plant, and then they fell in love and had a "gene synthesis" symbiotic love in?
WTF?
Get real.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hey this "porely educated" bloke never did get back to me.
bump.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think everyone is aware that in 20 years we'll all be eating gmo's and that we'll have salmons weighing 2,5 tons a piece. The problem is that no one asked us the citizens/consumers our opinion. No one thought :
"hey you know what, since gmo crops will easily contaminate natural crops, maybe we should do inside tests before we go putting them everywhere in the nature. That way not only can we do tests on the nocivity of this new technology but we can leave the choice to the consumer. And since the key word really is choice maybe we can notify on products if there are gmos inside".
It's really common decency and logic.
First, as a matter of science... citizens and consumers, on average, aren't qualified to weigh in. Especially in this scientifically-retarded country (retarded as far as the general population goes anyway).
Second, as a matter of practicality... it simply isn't feasible to put every regulatory question up for vote. That's why our elected officials are vested with the authority to create and maintain agencies - the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA in this case. They can employ PhD-holding scientists in the field to weigh the risks and benefits and make informed, educated decisions that members of Congress or the Executive branch don't have the comprehension or the time to adequately address.
Third, there are *extensive* "inside tests" done before any new technology made for consumption is allowed to even reach human clinical trials.
Fourth, besides being just in-general scientifically incompetent, the American population also happens to be spectacularly prone to being duped by fear-mongering political campaigns. If every decision was left to popular vote, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites or go to school with whites. At least in most of the Southern states. Nothing progressive would ever get done -- because people, especially uneducated people (the majority of the country), are naturally biased against change and, in particular, unfamiliar technology.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/21/business/21crop.php?page=2
True, and this is the case for every other country. But things started to move in europe (for example) because this subject was begining to be controversial. The government is the expression of the people's choices, the people should have the right to raise some objections. Again, it's a simple question of choice.
Which are generally well controlled for drugs. This doesn't seem to be the case for food :
1 - the moratory decided in europe has been decided on the basis of severe inconsistencies in the inside tests presented by monsanto.
2 - for gmo we're talking about long term effects of modified proteins (you know, like the prion and mad cow disease), this should ask for 10 years of tests not 6 months to have conclusive results. I know this isn't practically feasible but we should at least be cautious before we understand all the implications. Simple common sense.
I'm sorry but I disagree with your comparison here :
Interracial marriages = human rights = moral questions that are as old as humanity. Human rights generally do not have consequences on your health.
GMO = biotechnology with less than 20 years of feedback. All I'm saying is that we should think a little about it before rushing in and :
1 - copyrighting every living organism that is actually found in nature
2 - feeding everyone with thing we know CAN be potentially dangerous
as mentioned at the beginning of this thread - this is where it gets shady ... these agencies are run by the corporate elite who aim to promote their ties to industry ... look at who's been appointed the heads of these agencies in the last while ... they have been compromised - no longer independent and serving the public ... they only work to quicken the process to market ...
No one has ever held a gun to my head and ordered me to eat GMOs. I understand non-GMO foods are rare and expensive compared to their counterparts, but that doesn't prevent you from choosing to eat non-GMO foods. I get frustrated with how difficult and expensive it is to eat healthy where I live... go to a restaurant, order something like a turkey sandwich and you have to request that the bread isn't saturated w/ butter, the sandwich isn't covered in mayo, the bacon be left off, the side of fries is replaced w/ non-buttered vegetables, etc. (And most of the time they still fuck it up). Shopping for groceries is difficult as well. Low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-refined-sugar foods are often twice as expensive and require you to search for twice as long. But eating well is a priority to me, and I recognize that in a country full of fat, unhealthy people, I'm going to have to bear the costs of my lifestyle. It's inconvenient and frustrating, sure, but banning cheap, unhealthy foods is never going to work. If, however, there are enough health-conscious people like myself shopping for healthy alternatives, the market will respond. And that's happening now... KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, etc. are all following the lead of Subway. Still serve shitty food, but they recognize this growing demographic of people who actually care about their health and they realize they can make a profit there if the play to our interests.
The same approach applies to non-GMOs. If there is credibility to your argument, organic producers will thrive and the market will reflect this. If there are cross-pollinating problems (mixing GMOs w/ non-GMO acreage), then that can give rise to a cause of action against the GMO company. Prove negligence and you can recover for damages, perhaps even punitive damages if the negligence is gross.
But making safe and nutritious GMOs illegal isn't the proper approach. In my opinion at least. You talk about choice, but most anti-GMO advocates don't want choice -- they want only non-GMOs on the market.
Come on. You're telling me that if there was an enormous outcry in America against transgenic crops, the government wouldn't listen? The Washington politicians care about one thing -- getting re-elected -- and if the American population was as anti-GMO as the European populations seem to be, it would be more of a political battleground. But that isn't the case. The anti-GMO segment is a relatively small one (compared to, say, the Pro-Life segment or the Gay Marriage segment). The government here is the "expression of the people's choices"... the people here just don't care as much about transgenic foods. If they did, I would have to wait in long lines at the local organic food store. I don't. Everyone is at Wal-Mart buying so-called "Frankenfood."
If you disagree w/ something the American gov't is doing - mobilize and elect a different Congressman. If you can't get enough people to vote in an Organic Food enthusiast, then I believe that's a reflection of the country's wishes -- not of the gov't acting autonomously and w/ disregard to the people's preferences.
If a company like Monsanto has the clout to compromise the ethics of US regulatory agencies like the FDA, EPA, and USDA and get dangerous foods allowed onto the market... do you honestly think that Big Pharma companies can't do the same? Big Pharma is a much, much bigger, wealthier, and more influential industry than Ag Biotech.
You're right - it isn't practically feasible to keep potentially very beneficial products off the market for 10 years for long-term safety testing. Can you imagine? But even if we did... then, say, after 10 years the GMO foods in question prove safe. Then what? Then allow them onto the market? Yeah right. The anti-GMO people would demand further, longer-term testing: "Sure they're safe after 10 years... but who knows what detrimental effects they'll have after 100 years?"
This is why I brought up the cell phone thing a while back - an admittedly far-from-perfect analogy. But my point is -- an alarmist attitude can be adopted to prevent essentially any new technology from entering the market. (No one was worried that cell phones could cause immediate brain cancer... the concern involved the long-term, unstudy-able effects). So does that mean we should be flippant w/ legitimate safety concerns? Absolutely not. But we are gong to have to draw the line somewhere... and that's what the Gov't has done. The burden of proof is initially on the GMO company to demonstrate that no substantial risks to health or environment are posed by their product. Once they do this, the burden shifts to GMO's opposition to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a substantial risk. And this is why GMOs are everywhere -- the GMO companies has met their burden of proof, their opposition hasn't.
Well, I'll begin by conceding that I didn't pick the best example. But I do think that a case can be made that access to safe, affordable food IS a human right. I also think that, at the time when interracial marriage was disallowed, advocates for that status-quo argued that mixing the races could have detrimental effects on society (long-term incompatible genetic exchanges, loss of culture, etc). Regardless, I won't belabor the point. I should've posed a better analogy. My point, however, was that the American people are largely uneducated and prone to prejudice against things they don't understand or aren't familiar with. If we leave policy decisions soley to direct popular vote, nothing will progress.
It's really just semantics, but in America you can't copyright living organisms. Copyrights are primarily involved with works of art (books, music, etc). Patents are what you're thinking of (I believe) -- and it should be noted that although you can get a patent on any new, useful, non-obvious man-made thing (including living organisms), patents only last for 20 years. After the patent expires, it's designated to the public and anyone can copy it free of restraint. And you can't get a patent or a copyright on "living organisms ... found in nature." You have to actually have a hand in engineering it in a "new, useful, and non-obvious" way.
Heads of agencies are appointed either by the President w/ consent of the Senate or by the Houses of Congress. We elect both. Organize and get a non-GMO Congressman from your state in office. Lead the way.
Here's about the head of the FDA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_von_Eschenbach (used to be director of the National Cancer Institute -- never worked for Monsanto)
The head of the EPA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_L._Johnson
And of the USDA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Schafer
fda: look who he replaced and each subsequent commissioner ...
epa: "Johnson is currently attempting to block the efforts of 17 states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy" ... that pretty much sums it up for that guy ...
usda: really, what qualifies this guy to head the USDA?