Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GMOs = The Smart Future of Food
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 1 of 84 (725064)
04-23-2014 1:38 PM


Many of us have strong feelings when it comes to Monsanto and other Agricultural Biotechnology companies (DuPont, Syngenta, etc.), especially with the media coverage of these companies in recent times. However, while many ethics issues could be researched with these companies, I would like to focus this topic on the safety, efficacy, and benefits that can come from genetically modified foods, especially with the recent surge in anti-GMO individuals that have begun to be heard.
I came into this argument with only my view of Monsanto to guide me, and trust me I was biased against this company because of their business practices (many of these practices I have recently found out are alleged, and most likely not true). However, I decided that looking at the science was the way to truly judge these companies.
One site I find that grants information on the peer-reviewed journal articles that defend the GMO industry was:
BioFortified
On their site, they are currently working toward cataloging all the papers that support the Genetic Modification industry. As of this day, they have over 600 papers listed in their GENERA project and will continue to add more as time progresses. The overall literature has approximately 3,000 papers justifying the safety of these food products to be given to humanity and animals as food.
One major argument against the increase in genetically modified foods is the supposed increase in pesticide use for GMO plants. However, much of the increase in pesticide use can be attributed to two other causes. The first reason is farmers who do not understand that they can use less of the conventional sprays and overspray their crops. The other major contributor to the increase in pesticides is actually the Organic food industry. According to Joe Ballenger, to my surprise, I found that organic operations actually increase the amount of inputs put into the environment by requiring higher concentrations and more frequent applications of pesticides.
Source
In fact, even Penn and Teller have taken the organic industry to task on their show Bullshit for the fact that they are increasing their market share through fear-mongering and propaganda. One interesting fact is the current standing of Whole Foods versus Organic’s demon Monsanto in the Forbes top 500 list for 2013. Both of these companies stand relatively near one another in the rankings, with Monsanto being number 206 and Whole Foods is number 232.
Penn and Teller Bullshit: Organic Farming
Source
Finally, I feel that the Anti-GMO groups are doing a disservice to our worldwide community by forcefully stopping introduction of crops such as Golden Rice, which can reduce blindness due to Vitamin A deficiency, into regions like Southeast Asia. Vitamin A deficiency leads to approximately 500,000 cases of blindness a year worldwide. Golden Rice is genetically modified to contain Beta-Carotene, which breaks down in the body to vitamin A.
Source: Cases of blindness
Source: Golden Rice
My major point is that these products, while not guaranteed to be safe, have a process for checking safety and that the GMOs that have been released to the public at this time have stood up to scientific scrutiny. Minimal problems have been discovered from the introduction of GMOs over twenty years ago, enough so that the EU is considering removing the ban in place on these products. GMOs are a means to feeding an ever growing human population and to providing nutrition to individuals worldwide who would go without certain nutrients otherwise. GMOs=Good and a bright future for humanity.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 04-23-2014 10:06 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied
 Message 4 by frako, posted 04-24-2014 5:18 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 04-24-2014 6:33 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied
 Message 7 by Stile, posted 04-24-2014 10:32 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 84 (725066)
04-23-2014 7:56 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the GMOs = The Smart Future of Food thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 3 of 84 (725069)
04-23-2014 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-23-2014 1:38 PM


For me, the issue is patents.
If I find a plant growing wild and harvest its seeds, I should be able to grow them without Monsanto being able to claim patent violation.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 1:38 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 11:25 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 4 of 84 (725072)
04-24-2014 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-23-2014 1:38 PM


For me the problem's are safety and the way the patents are set up.
Im not convinced on the safety issue, there should be independant organisations testing these super foods to see how safe they are for human consumption. On the same level as new drugs are tested.
The problems i have with the way these patents are set up is, a truck can drive by your field and drop a few gmo seed's and wolla you have Monsanto knocking on your door for patent infringement, you are growing their corn, without their permission. Either make the seeds sterile so only one generation can be grown on a farm, or give up your rights once the corn makes its way to the fields.
But overall i support gmo's because if we dont plan on lowering the human population soon, they will be the only thing keeping us from starvation.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 1:38 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 11:40 AM frako has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(6)
Message 5 of 84 (725073)
04-24-2014 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-23-2014 1:38 PM


The champions of GMO-based foods made a terrible strategic error by fighting GMO labels--in fact, fighting to forbid the use of even "non-GMO" labels.
Like most Americans, I'll eat almost anything without protest.
But I won't swallow the notion that I have to remain ignorant for my own good.
A few observations:
BioFortified is cataloging supportive articles? Perhaps they should just catalog all the relevant science. That would be truly useful. My research shows they are independent and accept no corporate funding. Still, they are an advocacy site on this issue.
I'm curious about the increase in pesticide use with GMO crops being termed "supposed", given that some major GMO crops incorporate pesticidal chemicals into the genetic structure of the plant. Other GMO strains offer the advantage of being resistant to specific herbicides (e.g., Roundup-ready corn and soy), vastly increasing their use.
I found Joe Ballenger's remarks about organic operations--that they increase pesticide use--vague and misleading. His claim that organics use more, and more highly concentrated pesticides, is a major claim, but one he presents without any evidence. I'm skeptical, given the limited number of limited-effect, bio-derived pesticides that can be used while retaining the organic label.
I am also concerned about the migration of GMO-food genes into the wild, reducing the gene pool of native plants and conferring pesticide-producing and herbicide-resisting genes into wild cousins.
More trivially, this really bothered me:
quote:
n fact, even Penn and Teller have taken the organic industry to task on their show Bullshit for the fact that they are increasing their market share through fear-mongering and propaganda. One interesting fact is the current standing of Whole Foods versus Organic’s demon Monsanto in the Forbes top 500 list for 2013. Both of these companies stand relatively near one another in the rankings, with Monsanto being number 206 and Whole Foods is number 232.
Penn and Teller! Even! Irrelevant.
Fear-mongering? Like you'll starve if you don't support GMO foods?
Propaganda? Like suggesting that I conclude Whole Foods at 232 and Monsanto at 205 in the Forbes 500 suggests something bad about Whole Foods and organics?
For decades Monsanto has helped develop the plant varieties that make vegetables look great, ship hard and taste like cardboard. I'm more than a little reluctant to put all our fields into patented monocultures of pablum.
GMO foods were approved mostly on the idea that there was no reason to think they weren't safe--and the aggressive lobbying of Monsanto. Consumers are to be kept ignorant of the source of what they eat--due to aggressive lobbying by Monsanto.
Monsanto dug their own hole. Now, rather than continuing to dig, they should stop maligning organics and ridiculing legitimate concerns. If Monsanto is right, they need to educate the consuming public on why they are right, and offer persuasive science on both the safety of GMO foods and their safe ecological impact.
I'm a science enthusiast, and they haven't sold me on GMOs yet. And their heavy-handed efforts against farmers and consumers do not inspire confidence.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 1:38 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 8:41 AM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 11 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 12:43 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 84 (725079)
04-24-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Omnivorous
04-24-2014 6:33 AM


The champions of GMO-based foods made a terrible strategic error by fighting GMO labels--in fact, fighting to forbid the use of even "non-GMO" labels.
I certainly agree. And anyone having watched the 'lead' issue of Cosmos should be suspicious of this particular tactic. If you missed this, I recommend hunting it down.
I'm totally ignorant of the reasons why we are so sure GMO foods are safe, so I don't argue seriously that they are not. But I can tell you that Monsanto has indeed employed tactics in protecting their intellectual property rights have helped to give patents a bad name by ruining small farmers all over this planet.
I am also concerned about the migration of GMO-food genes into the wild, reducing the gene pool of native plants and conferring pesticide-producing and herbicide-resisting genes into wild cousins.
Exactly.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 04-24-2014 6:33 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 7 of 84 (725096)
04-24-2014 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-23-2014 1:38 PM


Do it!
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
GMOs=Good and a bright future for humanity.
I completely agree.
GMOs have the same problem Eugenics has... horrible PR
They are both fantastic ideas and we should be doing both of them in the right way.
The "right way" simply includes the same basic virtues pretty much every other "good" company/system is based on:
-honesty and openness about the process
-optional programs/products (no one is forced into it)
-goals and end results are decided by the consumers/users
-not causing harm to others
I'm personally on board with GMOs and Eugenics... as long as they are not used for evil.
The same way I'm on board with the production of nuclear power... as long as it's not used for evil.
Just do it the right way... it's not a difficult concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 1:38 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 8 of 84 (725118)
04-24-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by nwr
04-23-2014 10:06 PM


Definitely an issue, I will agree
nwr writes:
For me, the issue is patents.
If I find a plant growing wild and harvest its seeds, I should be able to grow them without Monsanto being able to claim patent violation.
This is a statement I am in full agreement with. I feel that the patent laws were not written with the intention of living organisms in mind and so patent laws, in regards to seeds, should be looked into on a legislative level. However, I do think that the situation of copyright infringment is blown out of proportion by the individuals on the anti-GMO side. From what I can find, since 1997 Monsanto has brought lawsuits against 144 different farmers, which is a paltry .05% of those individuals who purchase seeds from Monsanto. Of the cases that actually went to trial, all defendants were found to have a percentage of their crop Round Up Ready that was too large for accidental exposure of the field. In fact, in one recent case the farmer admitted to knowingly attempting to scam the system because he did not want to pay the prices for late season seed.
Source
Source: Monsanto Defeats Small Farmers in Critical Bioethics Class Action Suit
Risky resource from the belly of the beast: Monsanto

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 04-23-2014 10:06 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 11:45 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 9 of 84 (725125)
04-24-2014 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by frako
04-24-2014 5:18 AM


frako writes:
For me the problem's are safety and the way the patents are set up.
Well, my message above to nwr talks about the patent issue, which I agree needs some updating. Although many of the lawsuits have been for an actual breach of contract, so that is an important factor to bear in mind. not only will the corporation do what it can to protect its interests, but why would we assume all farmers are not trying to gain a little extra through underhanded ideas, such as the mention in Forbes about the farmer knowingly using seed he was aware was not for planting.
However, on the safety issue, I think we can begin to look at some of the information offered, especially with the misinformation that has been placed out there.
frako writes:
Im not convinced on the safety issue, there should be independant organisations testing these super foods to see how safe they are for human consumption. On the same level as new drugs are tested.
I am in full agreement that independent testing must be done on these products to ensure safety. However, it is a misinformation campaign that convinces you that no peer reviewed research has been done on GM products from indepentdent groups.
Just from the biofortified site, they have a list of 126 independent studies that have been performed on the efficacy of GMOs in our food supply.
Source
The groups that claim that no independent studies have been conducted follow a very similar pattern to many of the creationist arguments we see occur on this website where you can find the same information plastered across all the different outlets the moment it is stated by one group.
The European Union forked over 200 million Euros to consuct further testing on GMO products because of their reserved attitude toward accepting this new technology and returned with the results that:
European Union writes:
The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.
Source
frako writes:
The problems i have with the way these patents are set up is, a truck can drive by your field and drop a few gmo seed's and wolla you have Monsanto knocking on your door for patent infringement, you are growing their corn, without their permission. Either make the seeds sterile so only one generation can be grown on a farm, or give up your rights once the corn makes its way to the fields.
I agree that incidental contamination should not be a punishable offense, and according to the cases that have actually been discussed in this arena, it was not accidental contamination, but willful disobedience of a contractual obligation. While the legislation should be fixed, until it is it does not grant farmers rights to disobey the laws as currently written, just like it should not allow Monsanto to sue a farmer with only 5% contamination in his or her fields. If you have an example that you would like to discuss, I am sure we can look into the facts of the case and determine if the farmer was in the wrong (I will say that Monsanto is undefeated in court, not that this means anything really).
frako writes:
But overall i support gmo's because if we dont plan on lowering the human population soon, they will be the only thing keeping us from starvation.
Agreed, our population is growing too quickly to maintain with only conventional methods. The one that really upsets me is the stalling on Golden Rice, which can save countless lives.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 04-24-2014 5:18 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 2:13 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 84 (725130)
04-24-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-24-2014 11:25 AM


Re: Definitely an issue, I will agree
However, I do think that the situation of copyright infringment is blown out of proportion by the individuals on the anti-GMO side.
First, the issue is patent infringement and not copyright infringement. Sorry if that seems nit-picky, but muddled thinking about intellectual property rights is not productive.
Secondly, the issue is not merely the few farmers who got sued, it is the lock in to Monsanto when you obey the law that creates the issue. It's wrong to say things are not blown out of proportions simply because most people don't get sued. After all, all you have to do to avoid suit is to either pay Monsanto or give up your crop. And some of the patent issue is unique to GMO foods.
In other industries, once you license your patented product, you cannot use patent law to restrict how it is used by someone who pays the fee and obeys the rules. For example if you license a patent chip to me, you cannot use patent law to tell someone downstream that he cannot use it in TV sets. But patent law is interpreted differently for Monsanto. It is legal to save seed from your crop, but if you reuse it you owe Monsanto again. People have purchased collected seed legally harvested under Monsanto contracts, and the SC says that Monsanto can still control downstream uses. The difference is because Monsanto seeds replicate into new patentable products.
This kind of lock-in seems harmless when crops are successful. You pay a huge fee to Monsanto, you get five times the productivity you would otherwise have gotten, and then you have more than enough money to pay Monsanto next year. But when the crops don't work out, you end up deep in a hole, and you cannot use your crop seed to try again. You must play with Monsanto or quit.
There are plenty of horror stories about how this stuff works out for people in India and (in Iraq where the corps managed to force the country to recognize US patents, something no other country does). I'm curious to here your take on why the complaints those people make are all bogus.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 11:25 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 2:22 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 11 of 84 (725138)
04-24-2014 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Omnivorous
04-24-2014 6:33 AM


Omni writes:
The champions of GMO-based foods made a terrible strategic error by fighting GMO labels--in fact, fighting to forbid the use of even "non-GMO" labels.
Like most Americans, I'll eat almost anything without protest.
But I won't swallow the notion that I have to remain ignorant for my own good.
I am not sure that they wish you to remain ignorant for your own good. From my understanding it is cost-prohibitive (not to Monsanto, but to the farmers) to introduce GMO labeling into the system. Monsanto, as a argricultural firm, is not responsible for the actual growing of any of the products that develop from their seeds. These are sold to seed breeders, who combine these seeds to create hybrids which are sold to the farmers. This means that it would be Monsanto's responsiblity to add infrastructure to the existing system to house GM corn separate from conventional in the massive holding bins that farmers tends to use.
[I have a resource for this, but I am currently attempting to find it. I will add it once I have located it]
Omni writes:
BioFortified is cataloging supportive articles? Perhaps they should just catalog all the relevant science. That would be truly useful. My research shows they are independent and accept no corporate funding. Still, they are an advocacy site on this issue.
Actually, after further reading I was incorrect on them only posting the positive studies. Biofortified is attempting to gather all the relevant information into their GENERA database, both positive and negative. The interesting thing is the actual number of positive studies when compared to the negative...1/3 of which come from independent sources!
Omni writes:
I'm curious about the increase in pesticide use with GMO crops being termed "supposed", given that some major GMO crops incorporate pesticidal chemicals into the genetic structure of the plant. Other GMO strains offer the advantage of being resistant to specific herbicides (e.g., Roundup-ready corn and soy), vastly increasing their use.
I am assuming that you are referencing the Bt Toxin in Monsanto's Corn and Cotton, if I am correct? An interesting aspect of Bt is that it is very damaging to specific organisms and not damaging at all to others. According to the university of California: San Diego:
Bt action is very specific. Different strains of Bt are specific to different receptors in insect gut wall. Bt toxicity depends on recognizing receptors, damage to the gut by the toxin occurs upon binding to a receptor.
In the Corn product, the Bt Toxin is specified to react to receptors in the guts of the European Corn Borer and Corn Rootworm. There are some small issues when another insect is very closely related to the target species. The Monarch Butterfly has a low risk of damage from Bt transgenics. However, the toxins are not known to be damaging to humans are non-pest species.
Source
Omni writes:
I found Joe Ballenger's remarks about organic operations--that they increase pesticide use--vague and misleading. His claim that organics use more, and more highly concentrated pesticides, is a major claim, but one he presents without any evidence. I'm skeptical, given the limited number of limited-effect, bio-derived pesticides that can be used while retaining the organic label.
The increase in use of pesticides in organics is something that is relatively known and has to do with two specific items you mentioned, which I bolded. You even know that these pesticides are less effective, so they require an increase in the number of applications that are used to create the final product. With GMOs, the amount used can be reduced because of naturally occuring defenses that have been granted to the plant. These toxins, such as Bt, must be shown to be safe before introduction into the food system. Here is a test that was performed independently of BigAg which showed no damage to the testes through a Bt Toxin corn diet:
Source
This study is making a statement that there is no reproductive damage caused to mice from the ingestion of Bt Corn.
Omni writes:
I am also concerned about the migration of GMO-food genes into the wild, reducing the gene pool of native plants and conferring pesticide-producing and herbicide-resisting genes into wild cousins.
This is an interesting concern, especially because even cross contamination from GM fields is thought to be approximately .5-2% of a current crop. At this rate, with humans still selecting it seems unlikely that the crops will be fully evolved out of competition. However, I do agree that this is a concern that should be researched more fully. However, even if this is the case this is not justification for labeling, banishment, or any other strong response that the anti-GMO crowd attempts to place on trangenic crops.
Omni writes:
Penn and Teller! Even! Irrelevant.
Well, nice example of an attacking the source, rather than the information. While Penn (not so much Teller because of his lack of talking) does rely very heavily on hyperbole, the information is presented with evidential support that the main arguments of organics (more nutritious, better for the environment, etc...)are not true. Please deal with the substance of the argument, not the source as this is posted simply as a jumping off point for someone who dreads wading into these highly contentious waters. It allows people to watch it in a humorous way first before tackling the subject seriously.
Omni writes:
Fear-mongering? Like you'll starve if you don't support GMO foods?
But, this may be the case with the ever increasing population in the world. Will the first world be the first to suffer from this fate? That would not be my assumption, but it would affect the lower income workers if all food must go through extra steps that create extra cost on food suppliers. Sadly, I don't think the companies will take the hit without passing some of the damage on to the public.
Omni writes:
Propaganda? Like suggesting that I conclude Whole Foods at 232 and Monsanto at 205 in the Forbes 500 suggests something bad about Whole Foods and organics?
You took that as something different than the intended point I was trying to get across and for that i take the blame. I was obviously not clear enough. The reason I point out the Forbes rating of Monsanto and Whole Foods is the classic Anti-GMO argument of Big business does not have your best interests at heart. It is funny to hear this argument made against Monsanto by individuals who then proceed to shop through another big business. It makes their argument weaker because they too support big business.
Omni writes:
For decades Monsanto has helped develop the plant varieties that make vegetables look great, ship hard and taste like cardboard. I'm more than a little reluctant to put all our fields into patented monocultures of pablum.
We currently only use 8 different GM products in the United States (and we are the highest producer of these products). The aspects you are discussing, taste, shippable, and look are designed not through genetic modification (they are not transgenics) but through conventional plant breeding methods. Do I agree that a tomato, for instance, purchased from the store is less flavorful than an heirloom tomato, yes! And I feel that heirloom varities have a place in our marketplace at a higher price. Organic producers will use several of these same varities in the growing of their products as well. Monoculture is never going to happen because we require far too many different types of produce, althogh items like corn and soy will continue to get large fields allocated to them because their uses are so widespread, which has been the case even before GMos were introduced into agriculture.
Source
A funny aside: Round Up Ready, while always discussed as a GMO, was not actually made through genetic manipulation outside of conventional breeding techniques. Monsanto used artificial selection to create a strain more resistant to a poison that is extremely effective against weeds.
Omni writes:
GMO foods were approved mostly on the idea that there was no reason to think they weren't safe--and the aggressive lobbying of Monsanto. Consumers are to be kept ignorant of the source of what they eat--due to aggressive lobbying by Monsanto.
Monsanto dug their own hole. Now, rather than continuing to dig, they should stop maligning organics and ridiculing legitimate concerns.
If Monsanto is right, they need to educate the consuming public on why they are right, and offer persuasive science on both the safety of GMO foods and their safe ecological impact.
I agree that Monsanto should be more willing to share their research and create an open access type location for journal information showing the safety of their products. However, this goes onto the business side, which is something I have not completely made up my mind about. Also, just because Monsanto does not offer this transparancy does not mean Americans do not have access to the information. This information is published in different journals throughout the world. We get upset in this forum when people do not take the time to read through the journal articles regarding evolution, but can't expect the same thing from them in regards to the products they actually ingest?
Omni writes:
I'm a science enthusiast, and they haven't sold me on GMOs yet. And their heavy-handed efforts against farmers and consumers do not inspire confidence.
I think the science is as settled as it will be for now, although like any good science minded person, should differing information come to light I will gladly take it in and see how my views should change. As for the heavy handed efforts, I am starting to realize that several of the stories about monsanto attacking small farms are built up solely out of propaganda. I mean, we live in a country where Fox News is calling a man a patriot and a freedom fighter because he refuses to pay the grazing fees that every other rancher has to pay....how do we know the small farmers aren't the same. In my message to frako I posted about the Indiana who admits to breaking the licensing agreement because he thought it would save him money.
Overview of last ten years of genetically engineered crop research
Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 04-24-2014 6:33 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 2:01 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied
 Message 22 by Omnivorous, posted 04-24-2014 5:31 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 84 (725153)
04-24-2014 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-24-2014 12:43 PM


h. The reason I point out the Forbes rating of Monsanto and Whole Foods is the classic Anti-GMO argument of Big business does not have your best interests at heart.
That's an appropriate response to someone who is simply arguing BIG vs Little, but a comparison based on size is not appropriate if instead the real comparison is about the ethics displayed by Monsanto, a particular big company.
I am not sure that they wish you to remain ignorant for your own good. From my understanding it is cost-prohibitive (not to Monsanto, but to the farmers) to introduce GMO labeling into the system.
Do I understand you to be saying that farmers are complaining that it is cost prohibitive to them to allow other people to label their food as non-GMO. That complaint does not seem much like something anyone ought to take seriously. What is your take on why we should care about the impact on one farmer caused by another farmer labeling his product? Why isn't this something we ought to let the free market sort out?
However, even if this is the case this is not justification for labeling, banishment, or any other strong response that the anti-GMO crowd attempts to place on trangenic crops.
That it does not justify even labeling is a tough sell for me. Are you really convinced that the GMO stance of labeling is correct? If so, then explaining that would help justify your stance, which currently I find to be remarkably oblivious. So please share the basis of 'your understanding'.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 12:43 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 84 (725155)
04-24-2014 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-24-2014 11:40 AM


... according to the cases that have actually been discussed in this arena, it was not accidental contamination, but willful disobedience of a contractual obligation.
Monsanto gets to claim this because they've won all of the cases. But that is not what actually happened in Percy Schmeiser's case. Perry Schmeiser was never under any contractural obligation to pay Monsanto. He was sued purely on a patent infringement theory based on replanting his field after it had been accidentally contaminated with Roundup resistant corn.
Despite your attempt to paint things otherwise, the seed harvesting aspect of this patent was quite controversial, although the issue is completely settled law now. But the fact that the issue is settled does not stop us from questioning whether the law is appropriate or from considering Monsanto to be the bad guy.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 11:40 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 2:34 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 17 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 2:41 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 14 of 84 (725156)
04-24-2014 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NoNukes
04-24-2014 11:45 AM


Re: Definitely an issue, I will agree
NoNukes writes:
First, the issue is patent infringement and not copyright infringement. Sorry if that seems nit-picky, but muddled thinking about intellectual property rights is not productive.
Agreed, my fault for confusing the terms. I did mean to refer to it as patent infringement. I will ensure to use the proper term from now on.
NoNukes writes:
Secondly, the issue is not merely the few farmers who got sued, it is the lock in to Monsanto when you obey the law that creates the issue. It's wrong to say things are not blown out of proportions simply because most people don't get sued. After all, all you have to do to avoid suit is to either pay Monsanto or give up your crop. And some of the patent issue is unique to GMO foods.
I agree that the amount of force used through the contractual obligations of the farmer is an area of law that should be researched and possibly have changes made. However, this does not speak to the safety, efficacy, or danger of GM Foods. This gets into the area of business, which is a different beast and one that I feel would deserve its own separate thread apart from the actual "health" issues of GMOs. As it stands, I do agree with Monsanto's need to recoup costs of developing the technology, which is a process that can take several years and cost millions of dollars. However, I think that limits are definitely an area that should be looked into to provide protection for the farmers, especially in times of bad production.
NoNukes writes:
In other industries, once you license your patented product, you cannot use patent law to restrict how it is used by someone who pays the fee and obeys the rules. For example if you license a patent chip to me, you cannot use patent law to tell someone downstream that he cannot use it in TV sets. But patent law is interpreted differently for Monsanto. It is legal to save seed from your crop, but if you reuse it you owe Monsanto again. People have purchased collected seed legally harvested under Monsanto contracts, and the SC says that Monsanto can still control downstream uses. The difference is because Monsanto seeds replicate into new patentable products.
Okay, so there are differences between the products, which would require looking into the patent laws as they apply to genetically modified crops. But, this does not affect the scientific standing on the safety and efficacy of these products. Also, you say other industries (and I could be wrong here, so please correct me if so), but isn't Software another area where patents cover downstream production? I thought that was the impetus for the creation of opensource software, but again, please correct me if I am wrong. Finally on this point, I wil state that I agree the business aspect must be something that is confronted, because now we are dealing with patents on living, evolving organisms, a topic that while considered in 1930, was not considered with respect to being able to manipulate the genome.
NoNukes writes:
This kind of lock-in seems harmless when crops are successful. You pay a huge fee to Monsanto, you get five times the productivity you would otherwise have gotten, and then you have more than enough money to pay Monsanto next year. But when the crops don't work out, you end up deep in a hole, and you cannot use your crop seed to try again. You must play with Monsanto or quit.
And here is an area where farmers should focus their fight...the bad years. How can Monsanto be controlled in situations where the crops did not produce the yield that was anticipated. Monsanto should be allowed to recoup R&D costs, but not at the expense of the individuals being forced from the marketplace. Infact, in America because of the ability to reduce disease and other pathogens, most farmers do not reuse seed, whether growing conventional crops or GMOs, so all groups would be hit similarly by a bad growing year, not only GMO farmers. The reason not reusing seed reduces disease is because the seeds are from "true breeded" plants. These hybrids are closer to the two original parent varities and will grow consistently. Also, conventional crops are less drought resistant than GMO crops and will face more difficult years that GM crops can still get a yield during.
Source
NoNukes writes:
There are plenty of horror stories about how this stuff works out for people in India and (in Iraq where the corps managed to force the country to recognize US patents, something no other country does). I'm curious to here your take on why the complaints those people make are all bogus.
I would need some more information on the horrow stories you are discussing here. In regards to India, my guess is that you are referring to the increase in Farmer suicides that have occurred. However, it is important to note that the individual who ran that report did not control for other factors and did not consider other culprits, such as a change in the banking system in India during the same time. Areas that were most hit with the suicide rate increase were also areas where the new international banks were not as likely to give loans to small farmers, forcing them to take private loans with an up to 45% interest rate.
Source
As for Iraq, it appears that a majority of their crops are non-GM products as of 2008, so i would need a little more information to gain any insight and research your claim a bit more. Order 81 was simply adjusting a preexisting document to include breeder's rights, which is in existence in several other countries n the region and nothing new. if this is not your point, if you could clarify I will see what else I can find.
Source

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 11:45 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 2:40 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 15 of 84 (725157)
04-24-2014 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
04-24-2014 2:13 PM


Percy Schmeiser
NoNukes writes:
Monsanto gets to claim this because they've won all of the cases. But that is not what actually happened in Percy Schmeiser's case. Perry Schmeiser was never under any contractural obligation to pay Monsanto. He was sued purely on a patent infringement theory based on replanting his field after it had been accidentally contaminated with Roundup resistant corn.
Despite your attempt to paint things otherwise, the seed harvesting aspect of this patent was quite controversial, although the issue is completely settled law now. But the fact that the issue is settled does not stop us from questioning whether the law is appropriate or from considering Monsanto to be the bad guy.
Percy Schmeiser thought he could get away with gaining the benefits of a patented product without paying the rights. Taking the gentleman to court is no different from what any other multinational corporation would have done. He intentionally took patented material once he realized the benefit he could receive from the product. Should accidental crops be protected, of course. If someone has an accidental amount blown onto their field then definitely they should not be sued for the trace amounts. However, Percy knowingly replanted the crops. One could say that he had to because he was a seed saver, but each canola plant can get a farmer upwards of 80 new plants, there was no requirement that he should choose to replant the patented product instead of seeds from the non-contaminated segments of his field.
As for your comment on the cost being added to the farmers for labeling, as I said I have a source but it is proving difficult to find again through all the anti-stuff that instantly comes up on Google (Knew I should've saved the link). Give me a bit and it will explain better than I can, from a farmer's perspective, how the cost will go up for their operations.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 2:13 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 2:45 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024