[saucywoman]

With the March Against Monsanto rally yesterday at the art gallery that garnered at least 1000 people in support of labeling gmo food products, I wanted to see who out there cuts gmo's out of their diet as much as possible, who has no idea what gmo's are and anything relating to gmo. As well, let's list gvrd restaurants that use certified organic foods

This thread is for serious, mature discussions and if needed points/ bans will be awarded
Posted via RS Mobile

[Culverin]

The whole bees dying off thing is scary as heck.

I'm growing my own produce now too.
That's the best I can do I think, lead by example to my friends and family.

[too_slow]

FFS, I yelled out WTF in lecture when I thought the thread title says "genetically modified orgasms..."

[saucywoman]

The whole bees dying off thing is scary as heck.

I'm growing my own produce now too.
That's the best I can do I think, lead by example to my friends and family.

This is an awesome start :)
Monsanto has their own seeds though now too so make sure you're buying non gmo seeds when you can :) I started my own garden and try and boycott Monsanto type products when I can. Super hard since like 70-90% of food/produce is gentically modified. But thankfully there's the new buycott app and I've got lists of companies bookmarked so I can see who to support and who not to
Posted via RS Mobile

[SkinnyPupp]

I think being blindly against GMO completely is ignorant. Being against evil corporations is one thing, but being against improving food when possible is another.

Of course GMO can be potentially bad, you just have to acknowledge that it can also be very good, possibly helping end hunger around the world.

[RCubed]

FFS, I yelled out WTF in lecture when I thought the thread title says "genetically modified orgasms..."

hand on heart, i totally read this too.

[!oHenry]

I'm actually for GMOs. A lot of people in the world cannot afford, or even grow their food. With GMOs it gives people who have harsher climates a wider variety of foods available as well as keeping food cheap. (Relatively) In addition, a lot of agriculture today isn't grown for consumption but for fuel. (Corn for example) GMOs help this process by growing things faster, that are also resistance to drought or disease. We no longer live in a time where a slight change in climate forces half the population to starve.

However, I am against the non-ethical control of GMOs by corporations. GMOs as an idea is great, but it is the implementation that gets tricky. Technically, selective breeding is a form of GMO. At what point is a GMO no longer a living organism but just a product?

TLDR: Not against GMOs but against the unethical deployment of GMOs.

[FARMER]

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand that eating Frankenstein foods is bad for you. I think people intuitively know that GMOs are extremely bad for their health and that is why Monsanto and co. are doing everything they can to fight against GMO labelling.

One of my primary goals in life is to grow/eat the highest quality produce for my family because there is nothing more important to me than our health.

IMO, the best foods are those you grow your own. The second best are those grown by a farmer you know personally (you know your doctor/accountant/etc. on a first name basis, why not your farmer?), and/or lastly, spending a few extra bucks to buy locally grown food from your local farmers market is very good too.

To your health! :D

[SkinnyPupp]

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand that eating Frankenstein foods is bad for you. I think people intuitively know that GMOs are extremely bad for their health and that is why Monsanto and co. are doing everything they can to fight against GMO labelling.

One of my primary goals in life is to grow/eat the highest quality produce for my family because there is nothing more important to me than our health.

IMO, the best foods are those you grow your own. The second best are those grown by a farmer you know personally (you know your doctor/accountant/etc. on a first name basis, why not your farmer?), and/or lastly, spending a few extra bucks to buy locally grown food from your local farmers market is very good too.

To your health! :D
How does being modified make food "extremely bad" for your health?

[Culture_Vulture]

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand that eating Frankenstein foods is bad for you. I think people intuitively know that GMOs are extremely bad for their health and that is why Monsanto and co. are doing everything they can to fight against GMO labelling.

One of my primary goals in life is to grow/eat the highest quality produce for my family because there is nothing more important to me than our health.

IMO, the best foods are those you grow your own. The second best are those grown by a farmer you know personally (you know your doctor/accountant/etc. on a first name basis, why not your farmer?), and/or lastly, spending a few extra bucks to buy locally grown food from your local farmers market is very good too.

To your health! :D

This cannot be further away from the truth.

[SkinnyPupp]

OP and "FARMER's" posts perfectly demonstrates the ability for ignorant mob mentality to shape the way we think. Instead of actually looking into what makes something good or bad, they just say "GMO IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH" which is completely and utterly wrong and in fact, impossible.

Here is a easy to understand video that explains that GMO can NOT be good or bad - it is a process, not a product. A GMO product can be good or bad, not GMO itself.

inFact: The Unpopular Facts about GMOs - YouTube

They use a good analogy - typewriters vs computers to write a book. Being against GMO food is like being against books written on a computer. It's not the process that is good or bad, it's the product.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Mark Lynas » Time to call out the anti-GMO conspiracy theory (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/)

"Changing Crops for a Changing Climate" - Mark Lynas at Cornell University - 4.29.2013 - YouTube!

[saucywoman]

The reason I am against gmos is they're reconstructing code in the DNA of plants and animals, what are the long term effects on humans? So skinny pulp you're okay with eating genetically modified animals?

Maybe it's just Monsanto I don't like because of their practices but it would be nice to have more long term unbiased studies out there. Also, I am completely for labeling so I can be the one choosing if I want to ingest gmos or not. I worry about the effect these genetically modified products have on our soils though. Monsantos seeds can only be used for one season and then you need to keep buying more, there's possible crop contamination for farmers fields that don't want gmo seeds, the weeds could become resistant and create super weeds possibly just like superbugs have occurred.

Here's a good little article

Exposing The Truth about GMOs (http://www.exposingthetruth.co/truth-about-gmos/)
Posted via RS Mobile

[godwin]

Before the discussion, please define what GMO means for you. Stock selection like angus, dairy cows etc can be defined as GMO.. since they have been genetically modified by selection.

By defining it in a preface, it will solve a heck lot of confusion.

[godwin]

Can you explain what reconstructing code in the DNA mean? Do you mean mimicking other DNA sequence? Filling in gaps with similiar animals.. ala the movie jurassic park?

The reason why I ask is because you cannot just "reconstruct code" as it is not nature's business. Nature doesn't work like that, there are base pair restrictions and quite sophisticated error correction and redundancy that is built in... you fill in gibberish or something too far off, the animal just won't live.

You do realise DNA is just part of a larger picture? especially for complex animals like cows.. where its gut flora also play a role?

The reason I am against gmos is they're reconstructing code in the DNA of plants and animals, what are the long term effects on humans? So skinny pulp you're okay with eating genetically modified animals?

Maybe it's just Monsanto I don't like because of their practices but it would be nice to have more long term unbiased studies out there. Also, I am completely for labeling so I can be the one choosing if I want to ingest gmos or not. I worry about the effect these genetically modified products have on our soils though. Monsantos seeds can only be used for one season and then you need to keep buying more, there's possible crop contamination for farmers fields that don't want gmo seeds, the weeds could become resistant and create super weeds possibly just like superbugs have occurred.

Here's a good little article

Exposing The Truth about GMOs (http://www.exposingthetruth.co/truth-about-gmos/)
Posted via RS Mobile

[SkinnyPupp]

The reason I am against gmos is they're reconstructing code in the DNA of plants and animals, what are the long term effects on humans? So skinny pulp you're okay with eating genetically modified animals?

Maybe it's just Monsanto I don't like because of their practices but it would be nice to have more long term unbiased studies out there. Also, I am completely for labeling so I can be the one choosing if I want to ingest gmos or not. I worry about the effect these genetically modified products have on our soils though. Monsantos seeds can only be used for one season and then you need to keep buying more, there's possible crop contamination for farmers fields that don't want gmo seeds, the weeds could become resistant and create super weeds possibly just like superbugs have occurred.

Here's a good little article

Exposing The Truth about GMOs (http://www.exposingthetruth.co/truth-about-gmos/)
Posted via RS Mobile
I think you need to do some more reading - and not just from the anti-GMO people. Potentially the blindly pro-GMO people aren't going to give very useful information either. What you need to read are the ones who stand somewhere in between. The skeptics of both sides. They throw that facts your way, and you can decide from there what you want to support. Watch my video, and Ulic's video to start, and go from there.

If you read nothing but propaganda, you aren't going to be able to see the full picture.

[Soundy]

This is an awesome start :)
Monsanto has their own seeds though now too so make sure you're buying non gmo seeds when you can :) I started my own garden and try and boycott Monsanto type products when I can. Super hard since like 70-90% of food/produce is gentically modified. But thankfully there's the new buycott app and I've got lists of companies bookmarked so I can see who to support and who not to
Posted via RS Mobile

And this indicates the other part of the problem: "GMO" and "Monsanto" have become synonymous to everyone who's latched onto this cause-of-the-month, making it impossible for responsible GMO makers, researchers, and farmers to get a fair shake.

[DragonChi]

Does GMOs also include organisms that have been selectively bred, but no DNA has been actively altered?

I don't have a problem with GMO creation. I have a problem with companies being able to patent living organisms.

[godwin]

To be selectively bred, the organism's DNA has been altered.. hence why I asked OP to be specific.

Does GMOs also include organisms that have been selectively bred, but no DNA has been actively altered?

I don't have a problem with GMO creation. I have a problem with companies being able to patent living organisms.

[Soundy]

The reason I am against gmos is they're reconstructing code in the DNA of plants and animals, what are the long term effects on humans?
DNA changes on its own over time. Natural mutations, etc. The "organic" beef you eat now has DNA that's altered from the beef your great-grandparents ate. Did it have an effect on you that it didn't on them?

[DragonChi]

To be selectively bred, the organism's DNA has been altered.. hence why I asked OP to be specific.

But the method of selective breeding occurs in nature. With a broad definition like that, it would seem like every organism is GMO.

There are other methods of altering DNA, for example, with a virus.

I kind of figured that's what you were implying with that question.

[Culture_Vulture]

And this indicates the other part of the problem: "GMO" and "Monsanto" have become synonymous to everyone who's latched onto this cause-of-the-month, making it impossible for responsible GMO makers, researchers, and farmers to get a fair shake.
This is the general feeling that I am getting too. I was introduced to the discourse many years ago and a very large part of the discourse was simply being able to identify science behind GMO's (in its various forms: corporate, pseudo, etc.) and the ethical implications on such things.

Are "GMO's" horrible because Monsanto has paid developers and researchers to develop GMO's to their specific needs, for the purpose of profiting? Or are GMO's bad in themselves?
It's surprising how many people are too ignorant to draw the distinction between the two.

[DragonChi]

Monsanto is evil because they patent their products. Their products crossover into neighbouring fields and then they sue the farmers that got infested with their products.

That's one reason. I'm sure there are more.

[Soundy]

^I think that's the biggest reason for the whole current attitude: Monsanto started pissing off the world with their patent suits, your average layperson only heard "ooo, Monsanto is so bad with their GMOs!", and made the "GMO=evil" connection, which of course, is happily supported by any number of keyboard and YouTube warriors with an axe to grind, a tinfoil hat to polish, or just a desire to troll as many people as possible.

BTW, here are some of Monsanto's legal shenanigans detailed: http://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=monsanto

[SkinnyPupp]

^I think that's the biggest reason for the whole current attitude: Monsanto started pissing off the world with their patent suits, your average layperson only heard "ooo, Monsanto is so bad with their GMOs!", and made the "GMO=evil" connection, which of course, is happily supported by any number of keyboard and YouTube warriors with an axe to grind, a tinfoil hat to polish, or just a desire to troll as many people as possible.

BTW, here are some of Monsanto's legal shenanigans detailed: Search Techdirt: monsanto (http://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=monsanto)
That is true, but on top of that there is a lot of anti-GMO propaganda. I can remember people being blindly against it even before the anti-Monsanto stuff started.

It's like the pro-organic movement. There is no real reason for it - it is just branding. There may be some good things about it (farmers able to sell produce for a higher cost) and some bad, but overall people champion it for the wrong reasons (thinking it is "better for you" or somehow "tastes better")

Before that it was the anti-salt movement

Before that, anti cholesterol

Before that, the target was saturated fat

And so it goes... People ignore facts, and just join the rallying cry for the latest trend to be angry about something.

[J____]

oh first world problems.. I live in china now and everything i eat, touch, breath is genetically modified/chemical induced/carcinogenic lol. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, I haven't died yet :)

[SkinnyPupp]

Mark Lynas » Time to call out the anti-GMO conspiracy theory (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/)

"Changing Crops for a Changing Climate" - Mark Lynas at Cornell University - 4.29.2013 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eoRDKFX-NUA#)!
BTW if you didn't bother to watch this because of the length, I urge you to check it out. It speaks not only on the idiotic fight against GMO, but how following such conspiracy theories blindly can be really damaging to the world.

[Hondaracer]

How about 3D printers printing out steaks assembled with pork cells?

Stuff like this will be a nesacarry evil down the road
Posted via RS Mobile

[godwin]

The "selective breeding" you mentioned that occurs in nature, gives the specific bred a natural advantage over others, and that specific genes tends to spread throughout the whole species.. eg breeds of dogs we get would not occur in the wild.. eg Great Danes or Pugs. While humans bred animal for their own amusement and needs.

I still awaits what the OP defines as GMO etc first.

At this stage, we know method of raising organism affect taste (organic, greenhouse etc) of the food more than GMO.

But the method of selective breeding occurs in nature. With a broad definition like that, it would seem like every organism is GMO.

There are other methods of altering DNA, for example, with a virus.

I kind of figured that's what you were implying with that question.

[BrRsn]

Organic food is great but comes at a price. Land is scarce, we are expanding, we need cheap food.

Speaking from a purely scientific background, unless the genetic modifications make the plant over-produce some natural carcinogen (none that I can think of right now) or toxin, all that's really happening is overproduction of the reproductive organs/fruiting bodies -- don't see a problem with that.

I'm curious, is there any argument against GMO aside from the supposed negative effects on humans (i.e. wiping out native plant species by successfully competing for resources)?

If I give someone a genetically modified tomato and an organic tomato, the body's processes to break it down will be the same -- the only difference being one will simply have more plant mass. As a consumer I'd be more worried about the soil conditions and fertilizers used to grow a plant than its genetic make-up. Plant DNA/cellular material is all going to be destroyed/broken down by the time it reaches the stomach anyways.

/rambling

[Soundy]

^You know, heating water in a microwave is bad too, because it changes the water's DNA and mutates into something else.

True story.

[BrRsn]

Water doesn't have DNA ..... :pokerface:

:troll:

TL;DR -- we all die someday.
#yolo, buy cheap fruits and put regular gas in your premium requiring car, more money for beers and weed.

[godwin]

Not native per se, but Monsanto seeds are more resistant to weeds.. so they can crowd out traditional seeds at extreme conditions.

The thing is there is nothing truly "natural" about being agrarian ie farming.


I'm curious, is there any argument against GMO aside from the supposed negative effects on humans (i.e. wiping out native plant species by successfully competing for resources)?

[SkinnyPupp]

I wonder if we have opened OP's mind, and she is off doing research, or if she has just abandoned this thread due to logic overload

[!LittleDragon]

Mark Lynas was a founder of the anti-gmo movement and recently apologized for it. About a three trillion GMO meals served worldwide and no hard evidence of negative side effects. Following the footsteps of Patrick Moore... UBC grad who founded Green Peace and left the group when they became anti government. I recommend Youtubing his speeches and interviews as well.

A founder of the anti-GM food movement on how he got it wrong - The Interview - Macleans.ca (http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/18/a-founder-of-the-anti-gm-food-movement-explains-how-he-got-it-wrong-all-wrong/)

Mark Lynas used to be the kind of fire-breathing activist who sneaked onto test farms and destroyed genetically modified (GM) crops. Today, he’s one of Britain’s most respected science writers and an influential voice in the battle against climate change—winner of a coveted Royal Society Prize for his 2008 book, Six Degrees. In January, Lynas sent shockwaves through environmental circles by publicly apologizing for his role in launching the anti-GM movement. (GM is also referred to as to GMO, for “genetically modified organisms.”) “The GM debate is over,” he told Oxford University’s annual farming conference. “Three trillion meals eaten and there has never been a single substantiated case of harm.” Video of his speech went viral, and he’s been living with the backlash ever since.

Q: You’ve disavowed a cause you were identified with for decades. How are you feeling about your decision?

A: It’s been traumatic, but it’s also been something of a liberation. I’ve obviously been inconsistent in my life, but so are we all. In my view, it’s better to be inconsistent and half-right, than to be consistently wrong. Even the pope doesn’t claim these days to be infallible, yet that’s what most environmental groups do.

Q: Still, you’ve offended your former allies, a lot of whom are now trying to discredit you. Some say you exaggerated your part in founding the anti-GM movement to start with. What’s that been like on a personal level?

A: My whole social scene has been characterized by my environmentalism. I’m in a situation where I can go to a party and I don’t know who’s currently not speaking to me.

Q: On Twitter, Vandana Shiva, a prominent environmentalist in India, likened your calls for farmers to be able to plant GMOs to saying rapists should have the freedom to rape.

A: That was simply astonishing, and frankly, hurtful to people who have actually suffered the trauma of rape. Look, these attacks on me are obviously done in the interests of damage limitation. It’s sort of an emperor’s-new-clothes thing. I have helped expose the fact most people’s concerns about GM foods are based on mythology. Once you can get past the idea that there’s something inherently dangerous about GM foods, it’s a whole different conversation. We actually can tell whether GM foods are safe. They have been extensively tested hundreds and hundreds of times, using different techniques. Many of the tests were conducted independently. The jury is entirely in on this issue.

Q: Why did you choose this time and place to make your mea culpa?

A: I live in Oxford and I was invited. It wasn’t choreographed or preplanned in any way. I just got some ideas together and was asked to speak in a slot that emphasizes some freedom of thought and is meant to be provocative. It wasn’t as if I had a road-to-Damascus conversion, either. I have been developing these themes for several years, and I think this caught media headlines around the world because people [outside the U.K.] hadn’t heard of me before.

Q: You say this wasn’t an epiphany. Describe the intellectual and moral process that brought you to this point.

A: The process was really about familiarizing myself with the scientific evidence, and in fact, with an evidence-based world view in general. I got to that point by becoming less an environmental activist and more of a science writer through my work on climate change and having written two books on global warming. I’d been involved in countless debates with climate skeptics where I would be saying scientific evidence has to be the gold standard. Well, you don’t have to be a complete genius to figure out that scientific evidence is not with the anti-GM lobby. There is this mischaracterization of science, a sort of circular myth-building, at the heart of the anti-GMO cant.

Q: People are going to ask, though: if you admit you were massaging the truth then, how do we know you’re not massaging it now?

A. What I’ve done is difficult, and it’s why so few political leaders ever admit making a U-turn. They need to build up an aura of invincibility, and people’s belief in other people as leaders depends on this mirage. Fortunately that’s not something I’m interested in. This isn’t about me. It’s about the evidence and the truth.

Q. You argue that opposing GMOs is actually anti-environmental.

A. That was the realization that changed my mind. That recombinant DNA is actually a potentially very powerful technology for designing crop plants that can help humanity tackle our food-supply shortages, and also reduce our environmental footprint. They can help us use less fertilizer, and dramatically reduce pesticide applications. We can reduce our exposure to climate change through drought and heat-tolerant crops. So the potential is enormous.

Q: But even if one accepts that GMOs pose no threat to human health, is it not reasonable to worry about unintended consequences? If you make a crop that can’t be choked off by other plants, what might be the impact on the crop land or ecology of a given area?

A: It’s not reasonable, because all of those concerns would apply to any crop plant developed by humans—whether it’s done by genetic modification or conventional breeding. What’s so natural about mutagenesis, which creates a higher level of mutation of the genome through exposure to gamma radiation or mutagenic chemicals—then selects the mutations that confer a cultivation advantage? Conventional [plant] breeders have no idea what the impact is on the rest of the genome, or what allergens might have been created, because the results are not tested. They go straight into the food supply.

Q: You draw an interesting parallel between the denialism over global warming and denialism as it relates to GMOs. Both causes had been close to your heart. Did you reach a point where you had to choose between the two?

A: My overall effort has been to try to crash out an environmentalist perspective that is fully supported by evidence where there’s a scientific consensus. It’s interesting: the GM denialism seems to come from the left, and is particularly motivated by an anti-corporate world view; the climate-change denialism tends to come from the right and is motivated by suspicion of government.

Q: It strikes me that this is very much a story about the power of ideology—how it can blind people to the facts.

A: I agree, but you have to look at where the ideology is coming from, and why it’s so powerful and self-supporting. To my mind, anti-GM is a backward-looking, reactionary ideology, where you have a mythological, romanticized view of pre-industrialized agriculture being taken as the ideal. GM is seen as the opposite of that because it’s the epitome of technological and human progress in agriculture. So you have this collision of world views, where people who are fixated on doing things the old way simply cannot accept that you can even understand DNA, let alone work with it precisely and intentionally.

Q. The organic movement has staked a lot to anti-GM. Can it survive if the global public embraces GMOs?

A. The organic movement itself should embrace GM. The best applications of it mean that crops can be entirely pest-resistant by working in harmony with nature, which is after all what the organic movement is supposed to want. I don’t see any a priori reason why the organic movement accepts mutagenic crops and not GM crops. Ultimately it comes down to an aesthetic or even spiritual preference. We’re beyond a conversation where you can employ logic and science.

Q: So how do you think the organic movement should respond?

A: It’s a key test for them. Remember that most of what the organic movement has claimed is not true. Their food is not more nutritious. It’s not better for the environment. It’s not safer for human health. So what is left? You’re paying a premium for foods which, as Nina Fedoroff said on my blog, is a massive scam. That’s the recent board chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science talking.

Q: Maybe it’s just a matter of time before you have a splinter group of organic farmers willing work with GM crops.

A: I don’t know. My father is an organic farmer in north Wales and has been asking the Soil Association, the U.K.’s organic certification body, why he can’t grow a blight-resistant GM potato. It wouldn’t need to be sprayed with fungicide, and he could grow potatoes in wet years and not lose the entire crop. They can’t come up with any logical reason why.

Q: Do you eat organic food?

A: I try to avoid it, but my wife keeps buying it.

Q. Why do you avoid it?

A. Partly through bloody-mindedness. Partly because I object to paying more for something that is worse for the environment. And partly because I was shocked about the food contamination and health impacts—you know, the E.coli outbreak in Germany in 2011. I wouldn’t eat organic bean sprouts without giving them a thorough boiling.

Q. It would be easy for you to become a poster boy for genetically modified agriculture.

A. I’m no one’s poster boy, and I’m very careful about distinguishing myself from any industry lobbies. I don’t even speak on the same panels as industry people. For me this is a much wider struggle to reconcile environmentalism, which has so much good about it, with the reality of scientific evidence.

What do you do when "leader" changes his mind? lol

[godwin]

What do you do when "leader" changes his mind? lol

Actually real leaders are those who change their minds based on facts vs ideology and fess up. Horrible leaders are those who insist the world is flat even if the facts tell them otherwise. One of the problem I see with the modern leadership / world is every leader is on the pedestal and are not allowed to admit they are wrong.

[saucywoman]

These are all good points :) I've listened to everyone of them as this thread was created to get discussions going.
Until their are long term studies that are done by others with no vested interested on what this does to humans I'm going to try and eat non gmo when I can. I just became aware of what a gmo was not too long ago so still in the infancy stage in knowledge about and limiting them in my diet..
I did think this episode was good. Even the tv doctors admit no one knows what this does to humans and that peanut allergies are on the rise and could potentially be in part thanks to gm. Video Library (http://thedoctorstv.com/videolib/init/6517)

We all make our own choices and yes gm could be a good thing but I liken it to steroids being given to animals, I want to eat as natural foods as I can so my choice is to say no to gmo
The Economics of California's Genetically Modified Food Bill - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com) (http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/10/18/california-gmo-bill-gives-consumers-the-right-amount-of-choice)
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/agent_orange_corn_fact-sheet.pdf

ScienceDirect.com - Food and Chemical Toxicology - Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637)
Posted via RS Mobile

[SkinnyPupp]

It's good that you looked more into it, and while I think there's no reason to avoid it in terms of health, it doesn't harm anyone or spread misinformation to do so.

The main thing I guess is, that you realize that lumping together shitty corporations with a method of growing food is not a good idea. If you ever decide to protest or march against Monsanto, leave GMO itself out of it.

[Razor Ramon HG]

I used to think that GMOs were the worst things you could put in to your body. Over time, I did more reading (intentional and non-intentional) on the subject. and came to realize that GMOs aren't necessarily bad. I mean a fair percentage of the food we've been eating for the past couple of decades have had some sort of GMOs in them (soy and corn being the top two), yet we as humans are hitting all time highs for lifespan.

My opinion on the topic is that GMOs have helped us a lot more than it has harmed us (if it has at all). The main purpose of creating GMOs has always been to improve the original. GMOs crops are easier to harvest, are more resistant to pests and other natural annoyances, and in some cases, are even more beneficial to our health by including nutrients it wouldn't naturally possess.

It's just that Monsanto is linked to GMOs, and as stated by others in this thread, their unethical practices has sort of painted a bad light on the subject.

[DragonChi]

I think what added to the fear were things like injecting fish genes into a tomato. I would liken it to playing god, and stem cells research.

No one knows what'll happen, but there's only one way to find out. It's good that over time nothing has gone wrong.

[SkinnyPupp]

I think what added to the fear were things like injecting fish genes into a tomato. I would liken it to playing god, and stem cells research.

No one knows what'll happen, but there's only one way to find out. It's good that over time nothing has gone wrong.
That's just religious nonsense - the easiest protests of all to dismiss.

[dinosaur]

Although i am not a fan of GMOs, i think they are here to stay. I am concerned about longterm use and exposure and i don't like the idea of people messing with natural food.

The only thing i would like to see is proper food labels. This way the consumer can avoid these products should they choose.

[saucywoman]

Skinny pupp why do you have to act all high and mighty like your opinion is the only one that matters, you sound like such a cocky arrogant asshole. This was a thread for discussion about this topic, not for you to jump in like you do among many other threads and act like your way is the only right way

Putting fish genes into a tomato, putting genes in that will repel rodents from eating them or putting genes in that will make foods resistant to pesticides needs further studies on long term effects on humans... There is one long term study out that there that shows large tumors on rats.. If this is true and gmos cause cancerous tumors, infertility, other health problems, wreck havoc on the soils and environment then I don't want this around... My biggest points are that it should be labeled so people can choose whether or not they ingest this and more studies done by people other than the biotech corporations
Posted via RS Mobile

[DragonChi]

That's just religious nonsense - the easiest protests of all to dismiss.

Many people are religious. Policies are made based on what most people think, hence our vote for politicians.

Sure it may be nonsense, but I'd like to see you make your arguments against all of them to set them straight. There's where the real challenge lies.

[SkinnyPupp]

Skinny pupp why do you have to act all high and mighty like your opinion is the only one that matters, you sound like such a cocky arrogant asshole. This was a thread for discussion about this topic, not for you to jump in like you do among many other threads and act like your way is the only right way

Putting fish genes into a tomato, putting genes in that will repel rodents from eating them or putting genes in that will make foods resistant to pesticides needs further studies on long term effects on humans... There is one long term study out that there that shows large tumors on rats.. If this is true and gmos cause cancerous tumors, infertility, other health problems, wreck havoc on the soils and environment then I don't want this around... My biggest points are that it should be labeled so people can choose whether or not they ingest this and more studies done by people other than the biotech corporations
Posted via RS Mobile
I didn't say my opinion is the "only one that matters" I said that I dismiss religious arguments when it comes to science.

Don't get all upset about this, it has nothing to do with you or anyone else here. All I have been doing is posting the argument that it makes no sense to be against GMO just for the sake of being GMO. If you want to do this however, go for it!

You're the one who is coming across as not accepting arguments, calling me names and getting all upset. So because my opinion differs from yours, I am a "cocky asshole"?

You posted this to make a discussion about the topic. However when people discuss it, you resort to getting all upset and calling names. There is no 'right way' to believe something. There is logical and illogical. If you want to be illogical, fine. Like I said, it's not going to hurt anyone if you illogically decide not to eat GMO food. My only point was ever that you should not lump in a technology with a shitty company that everyone knows is shitty.

As for banning GMO itself, the world is changing, and we are going to have to change things to accommodate. If we hold back those changes because some people think it's immoral and everyone should live by their morals, we are doomed.

[Hondaracer]

to me it seems alot more ignorant to be all over GMO's and seemingly not concerned at all with practices such as fish farms etc.

killing and endangering entire species seems much more of a concern then producing 8-10% better yields on corn..

[dinosaur]

if needed points/ bans will be awarded


I think this here ^^ set the thread off on a negative foot.

I think that most people who ventured into this thread don't need to be warned before we post. We all get the rules of RS...we don't need it constantly slapped in our faces.

[bcedhk]

without GMO we wouldn't have big macs & double cheeseburgers.

Therefore, i support GMO

[godwin]

I agree with that sentiment.. it strikes me as Michelle Bachmann/ Tea Party esque.. where one want to press a point based on one's own belief rather than scientific facts. I still wait for the OP to respond with her definition of "altered" DNA.

I also find it ironic that a mod is having a spat with the programmer who made the board possible.

I think this here ^^ set the thread off on a negative foot.

I think that most people who ventured into this thread don't need to be warned before we post. We all get the rules of RS...we don't need it constantly slapped in our faces.

[godwin]

We play God all the time.. eg one of my grad studies was the laser out neurons of little worms to help create mathematical models so we can understand the brain more. In fact I would argue, basic research (ie research that doesn't have any immediate tangible results eg CERN's LHC) we are all trying to be God.

The thing about injecting "fish genes" into tomato.. they still need to conform to the ATGC construct, the way I think about it is cutting and pasting instead of typing in an a Shakespeare play by hand.. which way would you think would cause more errors? Some of the rice we eat every day are cross bred with wheat (so they require less water).. in nature that would not happen too... much like salmon genes in tomato. You can't really pick and choose because just because it is salmon genes it doesn't smell fishy.. it still follow the ATGC rules.

I think what added to the fear were things like injecting fish genes into a tomato. I would liken it to playing god, and stem cells research.

No one knows what'll happen, but there's only one way to find out. It's good that over time nothing has gone wrong.

[unit]

humans are natural, can something we engineer or produce be unnatural?
you could possibly call it evolution.

im for and against gmo labelling. on one hand its nice to know whats in your food.
on the other hand, gmos cannot be considered all bad in a blanket statement.
if you labelled gmo foods, ignorant people would just avoid all of them with the assumption that its just terrible for their health or ethically wrong.
this will hurt businesses who use certain genetically modified ingredients that may or may not be harmful at all.

[godwin]

I would also argue it is a "1st world problem" about banning GMO (not to mention selfish).. if you are a farmer farming where there is severe drought due to climate change no matter it is near Sahara Africa (eg Ethiopia) or Afghanistan. They would all want GMO seeds which are more drought resilient.

I think it shows how disconnected we are from our food supply. Honestly all the low hanging fruits in farming (fertilizing, water etc) have been tapped out. Yes to understand GMO in detail requires you to take 3 and 4th year genetics because all the simpler methods of improving farming had already been used! In order to feed the world with the current existing farming infrastructure we have, we have to move to GMO and vertical farming.

We should be freaking grateful we have plenty of food and have the choice to pick whether we want to eat GMO or not.

[dinosaur]

if you labelled gmo foods, ignorant people would just avoid all of them with the assumption that its just terrible for their health or ethically wrong.
this will hurt businesses who use certain genetically modified ingredients that may or may not be harmful at all.

I see where you are coming from, but I am not sure I fully agree...

People will still buy it much like people still buy a pop and a bag of chips. We all know this stuff isn't healthy or "bad" for you, but people still eat it.

People still eat at McDonalds, still buy beef from some factory in South America, and still consume fried chicken, chips, pop, candy, etc...when there are alternatives to all.

Will non-gmo foods be more expensive? most likely.

If organic bananas are suppose to be "better", why do people still buy non-organic bananas....because either they don't care or because they are $.50 cheaper.

I am very much in favour of labeling as i I think it is our right to know what we are eating. If we are buying products from companies to consume, we should be aware of what it is we are consuming. You wouldn't feel comfortable eating a mystery bag of food blindfolded, would you? I think it is similar.

If these companies that utilize GMOs start to notice a financial hit, maybe they need to evolve as well. Take a look at what Galen Weston Jr. is doing for Real Canadian Superstore's President's Choice lines. Its amazing! He has taken essentially a "no name" brand at a grocer that sells products at a budget level and has begun a transition away from cheap shit food to quality organic non-additive locally grown foods at a consumer friendly price. On a logistics level it is a fucking mess having to do this, but he sees the long-term benefit and where the trend is moving.

[Hondaracer]

I would also argue it is a "1st world problem" about banning GMO (not to mention selfish).. if you are a farmer farming where there is severe drought due to climate change no matter it is near Sahara Africa (eg Ethiopia) or Afghanistan. They would all want GMO seeds which are more drought resilient.

I think it shows how disconnected we are from our food supply. Honestly all the low hanging fruits in farming (fertilizing, water etc) have been tapped out. Yes to understand GMO in detail requires you to take 3 and 4th year genetics because all the simpler methods of improving farming had already been used! In order to feed the world with the current existing farming infrastructure we have, we have to move to GMO and vertical farming.

We should be freaking grateful we have plenty of food and have the choice to pick whether we want to eat GMO or not.

Agreed.

It's like going back to early nuclear technology, without reactors around these people would be still plowing fields with steers and using candles for light

The people who GMO food are going to help are the people who..uhhh....Don't have food?..
Posted via RS Mobile

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

I'm not against GMO.

or playing god (we are gods).

I am against some of the ethics practiced by some of the companies that control GMOs.

sadly these companies control like 99% of GMOs.

Like nuclear power, GMOs are a powerful tool or weapon. The people who control this stuff should be regulated heavily.

[DragonChi]

We play God all the time.. eg one of my grad studies was the laser out neurons of little worms to help create mathematical models so we can understand the brain more. In fact I would argue, basic research (ie research that doesn't have any immediate tangible results eg CERN's LHC) we are all trying to be God.

The thing about injecting "fish genes" into tomato.. they still need to conform to the ATGC construct, the way I think about it is cutting and pasting instead of typing in an a Shakespeare play by hand.. which way would you think would cause more errors? Some of the rice we eat every day are cross bred with wheat (so they require less water).. in nature that would not happen too... much like salmon genes in tomato. You can't really pick and choose because just because it is salmon genes it doesn't smell fishy.. it still follow the ATGC rules.

Studying to play God? j/k lol. Wouldn't your study be more geared towards the pursuit of knowledge, as opposed to playing god. I mean, when you were doing your research, did you ever feel like you were playing god, or more like you were trying to learn something. Same with the LHC, I think it's more geared towards the pursuit of knowledge, instead of having the power to create, take or give life.

IMO, selective breeding has a higher probability of happening in nature, compared to copying and pasting genes into different species. I mean, there was a dog study within the same species that allowed the fastest to breed, and since the fastest would breed, it would evolve the dog into a totally different animal. However, the dog was domesticated.

It could also be said that the strongest male deer, walrus, whatever animal competes for breeding rights would be able to pass on selective genes by the same pressures of dominance. This happens in nature.

Can you say that copying and pasting genes from different class of animals (mammals, reptiles, or birds) would happen like that? Maybe it doesn't matter if genetic modification is natural or not, for all we know, we could be accelerating evolution.

OK, not by speed but by tameness.
About 12 minutes in.

Documentary And Man Created Dog a National Geographic presentation - YouTube


Another, well known study.
Dmitry Konstantinovich Belyaev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


About the copy and pasting thing, I've copy and pasted material into different revisions of reports, only to proof read it later and having the report make no sense unless revision is done. This doesn't happen with ATGC constructs? I suppose it's like comparing apples to oranges, the report writing and genetics metaphor.

[godwin]

Honestly all the philosophical tangents you want to go off on.. the results are the same.. worms / creatures in the lab get destroyed for our knowledge.. then in our modern (Western and Asian) universities.. the IP is then licensed via the IP department of the universities to the highest bidder or benefactor.. Like it or not that's how modern universities operate especially at these tight budget times and most people are just not that interested or want to spend time to learn about it.

Some people ask whether "garage" type research is possible. I would say it is highly unlikely, not so much of lack of will and brain power, but money. The machines required for genetic research are highly precise and very repetitive and is just out of the price range of most "backyard innovator". A microscope I used was a quarter of a mill, that needs a few thousand to calibrate every 50 hours. You can do some of the science at the backyard garage.. but not even at the same magnitude of speed at a properly equipped lab unless you have the backing of likes of Nathan Myhrvold. Since we are a automotive forum, I will use a car analogy, in the past to improve yield, we used fertilizers, selective breeding to gain a great deal of advantage in yield, so think of then as the time of the 70s muscle car era, "no replacement for displacement".. GMO is the tweaking of the degree of cam and changing the mapping of the engine.. unless you know the ASIC of the ECU of how to reprogram it or desolder it to understand it.. you can't improve it.. even if you can improve it, the gain is very very minimal. You just can't use a set of socket and minimal knowledge of science to do that kind of work.

One fun fact about DNA is even between different classes of animals we still share a great deal of genetic material... because on the basic level all creatures goes through mitosis, generate power through mitochondria etc etc.. the basics are the same. If you want to really differentiate you should concentrate your argument on the proteonomic level rather than straight DNA... Not to mention, things plants and fish, they also experience simliar evolutions pressures and have simliar adaptations like bioluminescence etc. Like it or not plants and animals are not as dissimilar as you think especially on the DNA level, the difference comes with how the DNA is expressed.

Studying to play God? j/k lol. Wouldn't your study be more geared towards the pursuit of knowledge, as opposed to playing god. I mean, when you were doing your research, did you ever feel like you were playing god, or more like you were trying to learn something. Same with the LHC, I think it's more geared towards the pursuit of knowledge, instead of having the power to create, take or give life.

[Gridlock]

This thread is for serious, mature discussions and if needed points/ bans will be awarded
Posted via RS Mobile

Skinny pupp why do you have to act all high and mighty like your opinion is the only one that matters, you sound like such a cocky arrogant asshole.
Posted via RS Mobile

To totally, and completely derail this stupid thread...seriously?

No. Seriously.

I so love it when people start whipping out their mod dicks.

[godwin]

I don't quite get your analogy. Not to mention with DNA there are quite a good deal of error correction built in during the replication process. You can make gibberish, but the replication process can self correct (to a degree).. or the organism just doesn't live. As I say splicing DNA saves time because you know the trait you want exist at that location, you just cut that portion and put it in the target DNA and hope for the best. Usually you go through a few thousand tries before you get the splice to work correctly.

I would say if you want an easy to understand analogy: DNA splice is more like a .reg file in Windows, the creature is the Windows registry and the replication process is the parser. You can import a reg file about Photoshop, but if Photoshop is not installed on the machine, Windows will do weird things. DNA itself is not a report, it doesn't have any meaning.


About the copy and pasting thing, I've copy and pasted material into different revisions of reports, only to proof read it later and having the report make no sense unless revision is done. This doesn't happen with ATGC constructs? I suppose it's like comparing apples to oranges, the report writing and genetics metaphor.

[DragonChi]

^ That was pretty much what I was trying to say. Since there was a lot of talk about cutting out a ATGC piece of DNA and pasting it into another sample of DNA, wouldn't you come out with something that doesn't really make sense. In other words, not live.

So my next question is, how well do we know how these genetics work? It sounds like we're taking a shotgun approach and trying thousands of different combinations to get desired results. I guess if we REALLY knew how our genes worked, gene therapy would be a success.

Does anyone else think of Cloud Atlas when we're talking about this stuff? I mean getting genetics down to the point where we can create clone slaves and recycle themselves to each other in the name of efficiency. Even though that was a movie and this is real life, Just a thought.

I have ADD.

[godwin]

As with everything, there are probability of things go wrong. I would say "spoilage" of a lab experience is about 30%. Considering IVF procedure is about 20% it is not that bad. Remember these things are VERY SMALL. That's why I said it is very repetitive and detailed work.

We mechanism of how DNA works is well understood. The issue is there are a lot of possibilities not on the DNA level but on the transcription and protein level. It is the interaction of combination of the millions of active sites that require some major computing power.

Honestly for people who really want to do something about GMO, dedicate yourself 3 years to go to take genetics at a university and get some wet lab experience.. Instead of blowing smoke on a forum.

^ That was pretty much what I was trying to say. Since there was a lot of talk about cutting out a ATGC piece of DNA and pasting it into another sample of DNA, wouldn't you come out with something that doesn't really make sense. In other words, not live.

So my next question is, how well do we know how these genetics work? It sounds like we're taking a shotgun approach and trying thousands of different combinations to get desired results. I guess if we REALLY knew how our genes worked, gene therapy would be a success.

Does anyone else think of Cloud Atlas when we're talking about this stuff? I mean getting genetics down to the point where we can create clone slaves and recycle themselves to each other in the name of efficiency. Even though that was a movie and this is real life, Just a thought.

[bcrdukes]

To totally, and completely derail this stupid thread...seriously?

No. Seriously.

I so love it when people start whipping out their mod dicks.

RS Justice League to the rescue! :troll:

[finbar]

There is the issue of insect resistance to the Cry toxin produced by bacillus thuringiensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Use_of_Bt_genes_in_genetic_ engineering_of_plants_for_pest_control).

This diminishes the utility of Bt for the organic farmer.

[DragonChi]

As with everything, there are probability of things go wrong. I would say "spoilage" of a lab experience is about 30%. Considering IVF procedure is about 20% it is not that bad. Remember these things are VERY SMALL. That's why I said it is very repetitive and detailed work.

We mechanism of how DNA works is well understood. The issue is there are a lot of possibilities not on the DNA level but on the transcription and protein level. It is the interaction of combination of the millions of active sites that require some major computing power.

Honestly for people who really want to do something about GMO, dedicate yourself 3 years to go to take genetics at a university and get some wet lab experience.. Instead of blowing smoke on a forum.



Hmm, using a computer you can simulate what may or may not work, or rather, that trying to simulate the interactions on a computer is so intense that it's not feasible?

:fuckthatshit:

If I were to go back to university for three years, it would be to learn how to modify the shit out of these organisms to suite my needs. Will these genetics courses give me the skills to operate these machines that can modify genetic material? I'm serious about wanting to learn how to modify plants to produce higher yield of crop with a high resistance to environmental pressures, but that's not for awhile later when I get some other things in order.

I'm playing devils advocate. Didn't mean to hit a nerve. Blowing smoke is all I can do for now about the subject.

[willystyle]

Given the limited amount of arable land, the rapid growth in population, the soaring cost of fuel and cost of production, it's naive to believe that organic food will be sustainable in the long run.

100 years from now, a 3 course meal will be a luxury. Our daily nutritional needs and hunger for food will come in the form of a pill.

[dinosaur]

Given the limited amount of arable land, the rapid growth in population, the soaring cost of fuel and cost of production, it's naive to believe that organic food will be sustainable in the long run.

100 years from now, a 3 course meal will be a luxury. Our daily nutritional needs and hunger for food will come in the form of a pill.

I really don't agree with this and I think this attitude is a result of fear mongering.

Western nations are fearful of losing options, not basic nutritional needs.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Our daily nutritional needs and hunger for food will come in the form of a pill.

good. fuck food.

[willystyle]

I really don't agree with this and I think this attitude is a result of fear mongering.

Western nations are fearful of losing options, not basic nutritional needs.
I remain hopeful that it will not turn out that way, but signs point in that direction.

[godwin]

It is not not feasible but just a waste of computing power.

You don't have to take those courses to just use those machines, you just can just read the manuals. Taking those courses might give you the chance to interact with the scientists who might give you access to those machines. Unless you are very brillant, no lab will give you a $50k DNA chip to just to try on your first time out.

Also lot of the mutagenic materials are restricted, so if you want to modify the DNA and grow the organism yourself, you need to get a license from the gov. (it is less restrictive in the US). As I have said, unless you have backing from the likes of Nathan Myhrvold, you are not going to go far.



Hmm, using a computer you can simulate what may or may not work, or rather, that trying to simulate the interactions on a computer is so intense that it's not feasible?

If I were to go back to university for three years, it would be to learn how to modify the shit out of these organisms to suite my needs. Will these genetics courses give me the skills to operate these machines that can modify genetic material? I'm serious about wanting to learn how to modify plants to produce higher yield of crop with a high resistance to environmental pressures, but that's not for awhile later when I get some other things in order.

I'm playing devils advocate. Didn't mean to hit a nerve. Blowing smoke is all I can do for now about the subject.

[Razor Ramon HG]

As another lefty and sciency person, I've had this frustrating conversation with probably half my friends by now. I think the fear of it stems primarily from a lack of understanding of what GMO actually is/does, so it's become a conversation around basic intro-level education more than anything else. It reminds me a lot of having to explain the concept of evolution to someone who fought against it but didn't understand what it actually claimed. At this point it goes basically like this:

GMO is a form of technology which allows scientists to take small segments of genetic code from one organism and insert them into the genetic code of another organism. These segments of code are responsible for producing certain characteristics in the original organism which it evolved naturally over millions or billions of year. This is a technology which could be used to create organisms that would then be used for good purposes, bad purposes, neutral purposes, etc. In this way it's no different than any other technology, in that it can be harnessed for the purposes of the user.

We have in fact been modifying plants and animals to suit our needs since the dawn of agrarian civilization, by selecting for agriculture which randomly mutates in a direction we find beneficial (bigger produce, more pest resistance, etc). The difference is that in the past we had to rely on the random nature of mutation and then pick the best, while with GMO we can intentionally grab genetic code which has already evolved in other ecological niches and use it wherever it makes sense.

So, what can we do with GMO?

* Create healthier agricultural products. Inserting genes that code for the retention/production of nutrients like Vitamin A, β-Carotene, Iron, Iodine, etc would allow us to turn staple calorie-rich foods into healthier "superfoods".

* Create more robust agricultural products. This could take the form of natural pest resistance (to drastically reduce the use of pesticides, which have harmful side effects), resilience in the face of droughts and temperature extremes (reducing waste), and longer lasting produce (reducing spoilage).

* Boost yields in every dimension. More produce per land used, more produce per fertilizer used, more produce per water used, more food per CO2 expended by farming equipment, etc. To be clear, this is a green initiative. More food with lower footprint.

So, why do people fight against it?

* Mansanto. This company gets a terrible name due to their business practices (creating expensive dependencies, suing farmers, aggressive IP litigation, etc). Unfortunately this negativity has bled over to GMO as a general technology, because they are such a huge name in the industry today. Think of it like cable companies... everyone hates their cable company, but it's not because we hate cable or internet, it's because we hate the poor customer service and obnoxious business practices of our company specifically. Today Monsanto is the big name in GMO, and they suck. But that doesn't mean GMO sucks.

* Fear of unforeseen consequences. One common claim is that crop blights would do more damage resulting from lack of genetic diversity (the claim is often made that GMO crops will all be the same so they might all get killed off at once if the right disease hits). This one is particularly misguided in my mind because GMO is creating genetic diversity faster than we've ever had it before, and because it gives us tools to target and fight blights we've never had before. If we have to rely on the arduous and random process of natural mutation to increase genetic variance in our products, we are approaching the danger of crop blights with one hand tied behind our back.

* Argument in favor of customer choice. The "natural living" idea is big and growing in western culture, and along with it things like all-organic, vegan, paleo, etc diets. One of the arguments against GMO from this side is that it will reduce their ability to chose a "natural" lifestyle as GMO products proliferate and become commonplace.

* GMO as a technology could be intentionally used for nefarious purposes (engineering of more effective biological weapons, for example). This is completely separate from agriculture, though you will find some people that argue against researching GMO technology at all out of fear. This is not a viewpoint I hold.

The bottom line? GMO as a technology is not intrinsically good or bad. It has the potential to do very many good things and to avoid every one of the bad things depending on how it is implemented. It also has the potential to do just the opposite.

So, why do I support the concept of GMO? Besides all of the potential benefits of developing GMO agriculture I already listed, ultimately we live in a global society, which means we certainly aren't going to stop companies and governments around the world from developing and harnessing this technology whether we like it or not. So what do we do to prevent the Monsantos of the world from screwing us over? Throw ourselves into it head first and foster an environment of competition, innovation, and oversight/regulation. Embrace and invest in developing this technology for good, so that we can be healthier, feed more people around the world (not just empty calories, but nutrients as well), and do it all with lower impact to the environment.

lucilletwo comments on GMO Truthers need to be kicked out of the Progressive movement (http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1fcghm/gmo_truthers_need_to_be_kicked_out_of_the/ca93jv5)

This was on the front page of reddit.

[Soundy]

As another lefty and sciency person, I've had this frustrating conversation with probably half my friends by now. I think the fear of it stems primarily from a lack of understanding of what GMO actually is/does, so it's become a conversation around basic intro-level education more than anything else. It reminds me a lot of having to explain the concept of evolution to someone who fought against it but didn't understand what it actually claimed.
Actually, it sounds a lot like the anti-Smart-Meter debate, as a lot of the fear in both cases comes from a distortion of the terminology. The anti-Meter side likes to use terms like "electromagnetic radiation", because well, everyone knows radiation is bad for you, and "electromagnetic" is just a big scary word that makes it that much worse. For a lot of people, I expect the term "genetically modified" conjures images of a mad scientist hunkered away in his lab plotting the overthrow of humanity with his mind-control grains.

* GMO as a technology could be intentionally used for nefarious purposes (engineering of more effective biological weapons, for example). This is completely separate from agriculture, though you will find some people that argue against researching GMO technology at all out of fear. This is not a viewpoint I hold.

The bottom line? GMO as a technology is not intrinsically good or bad. It has the potential to do very many good things and to avoid every one of the bad things depending on how it is implemented. It also has the potential to do just the opposite.
And this sounds a lot like the recent anti-nuclear-power hysteria that's been flitting around since Fukushima. Nuclear power and research, similarly, are neither good nor bad in and of themselves, but of course, incidents like this trigger fear, which some people are more than happy to fuel with mis-/dis-information, including equating the safe, peaceful use of nuclear power directly to the abuse of nuclear weapons.

In the end, with ALL these topics, a lot of it comes down to laziness of people not wanting to bother REALLY researching things for themselves, but instead going in with pre-conceived fears, and then merely finding whatever they can that supports those fears.

[Gridlock]

Actually, it sounds a lot like the anti-Smart-Meter debate, as a lot of the fear in both cases comes from a distortion of the terminology. The anti-Meter side likes to use terms like "electromagnetic radiation", because well, everyone knows radiation is bad for you, and "electromagnetic" is just a big scary word that makes it that much worse. For a lot of people, I expect the term "genetically modified" conjures images of a mad scientist hunkered away in his lab plotting the overthrow of humanity with his mind-control grains.


And this sounds a lot like the recent anti-nuclear-power hysteria that's been flitting around since Fukushima. Nuclear power and research, similarly, are neither good nor bad in and of themselves, but of course, incidents like this trigger fear, which some people are more than happy to fuel with mis-/dis-information, including equating the safe, peaceful use of nuclear power directly to the abuse of nuclear weapons.

In the end, with ALL these topics, a lot of it comes down to laziness of people not wanting to bother REALLY researching things for themselves, but instead going in with pre-conceived fears, and then merely finding whatever they can that supports those fears.

Within the typical process for these things...heard a lot about smart meters 6 months later after the bugs were worked out of the system?

[godwin]

or count how many SSIDs and signal bars are there when you walk around places where there are signs for "i wearz tin foil hatz, no smart meters!".

Again to understand the mechanics and impact of GMO, the best way is still to take genetic courses at 3rd and 4th year level. You will realise it is not as easy as it looks.. also remember DNA is freaking small. You usually not sure you have really splice to the correct target area until you start the transcription process.

Within the typical process for these things...heard a lot about smart meters 6 months later after the bugs were worked out of the system?

[saucywoman]

Again to understand the mechanics and impact of
GMO, the best way is still to take genetic courses at
3rd and 4th year level.
Well we know I won't be doing this. I just think that until we know more about this on humanity and the environment we should have labeling and do further long term studies.


We have the right to know what’s in the food we’re eating and feeding to our families. we deserve an
informed choice.

THE ETHICS OF EXPERIMENTATION
Genetically engineered foods have not been adequately tested; it’s unethical to be putting an experimental technology into the food we feed our families.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require safety assessments of GMO foods and does not review all GMO products hitting the market. FDA guidelines are entirely voluntary and the patent holders themselves determine whether their products “warrant analytical or toxicological tests.”
According to the National Academy of Sciences, GMOs may carry new toxins and allergens. There has been only one human feeding study and it found things the biotech industry said would not and could not happen. Government regulatory agencies are not even tracking GMO foods for problems. We have a moral obligation to resolve safety issues surrounding GMOs for our children and for the generations to come.

UNITED STATES & CANADA LAG BEHIND THE REST OF THE WORLD
Nearly 50 countries require labels on GMOs, and many of these also have severe restrictions or bans against GMO food production or sale. We deserve the same level of protection and information as citizens in other nations around the world.
Countries with mandatory labeling include Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand, Russia and all of the countries in the European Union. Some of the countries with severe restrictions or bans against GMO food production or sale are Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, Ireland, the Philippines, Australia, Peru and Japan.
The U.S. and Canada are two of the only developed nations in the world without GMO labeling.
Posted via RS Mobile

[SkinnyPupp]

I have never seen a GMO label in China, or Japan (or Hong Kong although that's not listed). Do you know what this label looks like?

[Soundy]

Genetically engineered foods have not been adequately tested;
And who decides what's "adequate"? Some will declare it adequate if the things don't burst into flame in the fields... others will never be satisfied even with 20 years of intensive laboratory testing.

[gars]

Interesting Article from a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard in Chem and Bio-Chem talking about how the Canadian Federal Green Party is misinforming it's supporters that GMO foods are harmful.

Don't get me wrong, Harper scares me with his anti-science approach, but the Green Party scares me with their tinfoil hat approach to science.

Type “the war on science” into Google. Hit enter. You’ve just received 1,320,000,000 results in 0.28 seconds and, unsurprisingly, “The Republican War on Science” is the top result. It’s a clichéd narrative, not to imply that it’s undeserved. But scroll down to the fifth entry and you’ll find, “The Canadian War on Science”. Canadians? Canada is typically regarded as a left-leaning nation, when measured against the American political spectrum. And left leaning parties are often viewed as embracing scientific discovery and research-based policies, right?

For the sake of full disclosure, in addition to being a Harvard scientist, I’m an overly-apologetic, maple syrup swilling, citizen of America’s hat. Emulating our southern neighbors, Canada’s conservative government is shamefully guilty of waging their own war on science. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is busy attempting to greenwash oil-covered wetlands, while simultaneously gutting funding for water quality monitoring , rendering impotent the national census, and prioritizing federal funding to favor research with direct industrial application. Shameful to be sure, but this is not the war with which we concern ourselves here. In Canada, as in much of the US and Europe, science is under a coordinated attack on a second and much ignored front. The aggressors? The far left.

For every young-earth creationist, climate-science denier, and opponent of stem-cell therapy, there is a GMO-protester, homeopathy enthusiast, and vaccine-a-phobe. The key difference being that on the right end of the political spectrum, the enemy is generally perceived to be big government; on the left, it’s big business.

While recent political trends in North America have bred legislation that reflects the irrational arguments of the right, there is an emerging and alarming trend of legally indulging the irrational left. Take for example the Green Party of Canada, whose mailing list I recently subscribed to. For a while, the incoming e-mail bulletins were mostly innocuous. That all changed a few weeks ago when the bulletins began urgently warning me of the dangers of genetically-modified foods, and not simply the dangers that GMOs could pose to the environment. Instead, these warnings urged me to take action against the “potentially serious threat” that GMOs pose to our personal health.

Just to be clear, there has never been a single reputable, peer-reviewed study that has found any link between the consumption of genetically modified foods and adverse health effects. Perhaps as importantly, there is no proposed mechanism that can explain why any such link could exist. The claim that GMOs are unsafe for human consumption is entirely unsupported and is a prime example of thinking informed by unscientific and purely emotional arguments. For a political party to blindly propagate these ideas is irresponsible at best and, at worst, ideologically-motivated alarmism.

Let me emphasize that the Green Party claims to inform its policies with the best possible science. This is the party that claims to have science on its side. This is a party that a disproportionate number of scientists likely voted for. This is the party that I voted for.

I was so taken aback that I was prompted to do something for the very first time: I sent a concerned letter to my politicians. I e-mailed the leader of the Party, Member of Parliament Elizabeth May, and her shadow cabinet member representing agriculture, Kate Storey. Earnestly thinking that there must be some kind of misunderstanding, I politely expressed my concern and asked them to consider the evidence and reconsider their policies towards GMOs. I offered my knowledge and resources to help clarify the finer points of the science and to answer any question they might have. The reply that I received was less than enthusiastic. Instead of considering their own policies, Mrs. Storey asked me to consider initiating “comprehensive, peer reviewed and independent studies of GMO foods”, stressing the importance of “independent studies, free from the conflict of interest which has compromised the validity of the GMO health research.”

In reply, I sent Mrs. Storey links to reviews featuring over 70 studies meeting her requested criteria. All independent. All peer-reviewed. I tried to emphasize that there exists much independent research on this topic and that as the evidence continues to mount, we are more and more certain that there is no link between adverse health effects and the consumption of GMOs.

Ignoring this, Mrs. Storey’s reply insisted that the seed companies had not allowed independent studies (as though companies have the power to limit independent research) and that we scientists “must free [ourselves] from [our] ties to corporate profit” and that if we cannot, then we “will obviously continue to have distrust from the public.”

At this, I attempted to lead Mrs. Storey through some of the literature to demonstrate that there were, in fact, no conflicts of interest present. I tried to describe the process by which reputable journals attempt to eliminate such conflicts of interest. My email went unanswered.

Back to Google. It’s somewhat comforting to know that I’m not the first person to observe the irrational attitude of the far-left towards science and the political framing of GMOs in particular. Others have recently made similar criticisms of Green parties in other nations. Although the British and Canadian “Green Parties” share no official connections, they seem to share the very same anti-scientific beliefs. This begs the question: Is Green the new color of scientific ignorance?

Aside from removing my name from their mailing list and vowing not to vote Green until they clean up their act, what can be done? Let’s consider the appeals: Logos clearly failed and ethos is likely hopeless, leaving pathos as the final option. And perhaps this is the very crux of the issue: Despite their claims, the far-left is championing legislation not because it’s supported by evidence, but instead because it feels right. Otherwise put, the legislation coincides with a worldview built upon emotionally-motivated misinformation. In this sense, the political spectrum appears to be more of a political donut. The far right and left meet on this donut, ironically sharing far more in common than either would like to admit. Both groups are attempting to coopt science to serve ideology. This is a difficult admission for many of us who identify so strongly with environmentalism, sustainability and other parts of the green manifesto.

Perhaps in today’s age of party politics, there can be no party with which a person can identify completely. At the very least, however, scientists and informed citizens should attempt to hold our politicians to a slightly higher standard, calling them out on their indiscretions when appropriate. I urge you to contact your representatives the next time they back legislation contrary to science. At the very least, their responses may expose a deeper truth about their motivations.

Aaron Larsen is a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University.

Not so quiet on the left-ern front | policylab (http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~policylab/2013/07/03/not-so-quiet-on-the-left-ern-front/)

[dinosaur]

Amusing debate:

5 ways a 14-year-old crushed an arrogant interviewer | Articles | Home (http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/5_ways_a_14yearold_crushed_an_arrogant_interviewer _15006.aspx)

[DragonChi]

I wouldn't say that was crushing, but it's that she didn't give into his game or admit that GMO had any scientific or societal merits. Maybe O'Leary has some soul in him, since he seemed a lot nicer than usual to the kid, compared to how he is with Mrs. Lang. The comments in that link say it all.

Turns out Golden rice wasn't scrapped and the Philippines might approve it for testing next year. What's more, GMO does increase yields (chapter one or two in the book below, haven't read it in a long time so and I'm too lazy to cite it properly). How did our population increase so much without more food and with traditional farming techniques?! . That little girl seems to be turning a blind eye to some of this. Or I could be wrong and didn't do my research properly.

Good book with lots of great examples on our current food situation:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=njIJ1eRNSYAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

I agree with the Labeling, that's fine, but how are you going to test foods for the long term? Really, like a 5 year study on just one food product?

Independent food reviewers fine, even if we had to put in a couple cents per item to test it.

More info, how they GM GMO!
The Age of Plenty - IEEE Spectrum (http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/the-age-of-plenty)

If you have a proxy or use hotspot shield, some GMO satyr:
Leela and the Genestalk - Episode - Season 7 - Ep. 722 | Comedy Central (http://www.comedycentral.com/episodes/u514dj/futurama-futurama--leela-and-the-genestalk-season-7-ep-722)

[dinosaur]

I wouldn't say that was crushing, but it's that she didn't give into his game or admit that GMO had any scientific or societal merits.

Yes, I agree the title is a little misleading, but I do really appreciate her effort.

She is quite articulate for a 14 year old and did not appear to be nervous or intimidated.

[Soundy]

I wouldn't say that was crushing, but it's that she didn't give into his game or admit that GMO had any scientific or societal merits. Maybe O'Leary has some soul in him, since he seemed a lot nicer than usual to the kid, compared to how he is with Mrs. Lang. The comments in that link say it all.
The book on Mr. Wonderful is that he really is a nice guy in person, and what you see is mainly a TV persona... kinda like Gordon Ramsay.

[DragonChi]

Nice, I will head out to the library in a few days for this.

Thanks!