GMO Foods - Yes on I-522

[Jaglavak]

We should require labeling of GMO foods for two reasons.

Reason the first, GMO foods are less nutritious and contain herbicide residue including formaldahyde.

Reason the second, the top three GMO seed companies now control over half the world seed market, and they are some seriously evil sons of bitches.

Us consumers should be given the opportunity to avoid GMO foods, and with the kind of market dominance we face a legal requirement is the only way it's going to happen.

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

We should require labeling of GMO foods for two reasons.

Reason the first, GMO foods are less nutritious and contain herbicide residue including formaldahyde.

The only bigger con artist than this whack job is Billy Meier.

[Lounsbury]

Lesson Three: whatever Jag's opinion is on a subject, fact and informed knowledge should led you to the precise opposite conclusion, unless you're an idiot or a paranoid.

[Jaglavak]

Alternate cites or STFU.

[running coach]

From here.

Accidental ingestion of glyphosate formulations is generally associated with only mild, transient, gastrointestinal features. Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup (The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.) (41% glyphosate as the IPA salt and 15% POEA).

Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults.

85ml is a third of a cup.

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by Pere

Can we get a big-ass "GENETICALLY MODIFIED" on the GMO products?

Originally Posted by ulfhjorr

How about a big-ass "GMO FREE" sticker on those products that can prove that they are? That way we're not in the business of scaring people about things that aren't proven to harm people.

The first sticker would have to go on everything unless it's proven to qualify for the second sticker, since GMO stuff is not separated out, so it's pretty much in everything, now. Enjoy your Frankenfood! Yum!

[ulfhjorr]

Yeah, I left out the word "instead" in my counter-proposal. I didn't want a second label sticker, but rather just the one. That way, anyone who wants to shop GMO-free is able to, but we're not forcing companies into which marketing gimmicks they apply to their products.

[KidVermicious]

I'm in favor of labeling the stuff, for sure. With the amount of money they're making, I don't trust 'em to have my health at the very front of their list of things to be worried about.

[Steophan]

As long as we also label anything that's been selectively bred over the last god knows how many millennia with the same label, it's fine.

GM food is not the problem. The problem is people's demand for, frankly, shit, cheap food means suppliers will cater for that, using whatever methods they can.

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by KidVermicious

I'm in favor of labeling the stuff, for sure. With the amount of money they're making, I don't trust 'em to have my health at the very front of their list of things to be worried about.

You don't need a label if you're in the US. It's so prevalent that it's virtually guaranteed to be in everything. Assume the label's there, unless it's labeled as GMO-FREE.

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

We should require labeling of GMO foods for two reasons.

Reason the first, GMO foods are less nutritious and contain herbicide residue including formaldahyde.

Even you aren't stupid enough to believe that drivel. The vast majority of the article wasn't even about modern genetically modified crops which people call "GMOs", but about historically modified crops that people call "crops." The rest appears to be based on one analysis of one farmer's two fields, without even the most basic of scientific controls, methods, disclosures or cautions. Indeed, the company doing the analysis specifically prohibited anyone other than the customer from publishing the "study."

[McNutty]

I ask again: is there any way a manufacturer who is using some sort of plant-based ingredient in his product can know that it's not genetically modified?

[PSXer]

yeah scientists need to stop interfering with our food

God didn't intend vegetables to have genes

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by McNutty

I ask again: is there any way a manufacturer who is using some sort of plant-based ingredient in his product can know that it's not genetically modified?

I assume here you mean lab-genetically modified. Yes, he can know to a reasonable certainty but no, not to a moral certainty (assuming US crops). Farmers have to buy this stuff. So they know whether they're growing it. By working with those farmers who choose not to buy lab-modified seeds a manufacturer can be confident that the vast, vast majority of his ingredients haven't been lab-modified.

However, as mwm said in the other thread, wind exists and seeds germinate. There's likely to be at least some tiny amount of lab-modified seed growing in most American fields. A manufacturer can't absolutely guarantee that every kernel, grain or whatever is not lab modified but he can easily say whether there's less of that product than, say, bugs.

[Craneop2]

It is also widely believed that GMO are a cause of CCD (colony collapse disorder ) in honeybees and other pollinators. I don't know for sure if that is the case. There are studies that disprove it and there are also studies that seem to say yes that is the problem.
We do know that CCD is a real problem, whatever the cause.
If we lose one of our main pollinators we have also lost most plant life as we know it.

Sorry for the hijack... Carry on.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Lesson Three: whatever Jag's opinion is on a subject, fact and informed knowledge should led you to the precise opposite conclusion, unless you're an idiot or a paranoid.

Lesson 4: Lounsbury is going to side with big money no matter what, every time. And he's going to use rude and abusive language to belittle anyone who disagrees with him. It's all very nouveau behavior.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

Even you aren't stupid enough to believe that drivel. The vast majority of the article wasn't even about modern genetically modified crops which people call "GMOs", but about historically modified crops that people call "crops." The rest appears to be based on one analysis of one farmer's two fields, without even the most basic of scientific controls, methods, disclosures or cautions. Indeed, the company doing the analysis specifically prohibited anyone other than the customer from publishing the "study."

I always find it truly bizarre that this mad science technology has taken over such a major portion of our food supply. And people have blind faith in it even though the long-term effects have not been studied at all.

There shouldn't be any controversy at all regarding labelling. Labelling isn't a ban. It just helps the consumer know which food has been altered in a lab and which isn't.

Maybe it's fine, maybe it isn't. But it hasn't been adequately studied. How could it be? It's a relatively recent phenomenon. The people who compare it to historical cross-breeding are risible.

Monsanto has been responsible for some of the nastiest shit to cause the deaths of untold millions over the past century, and yet, for some bizarre reason, people have this blind trust that whatever they produce is ok.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Craneop2

It is also widely believed that GMO are a cause of CCD (colony collapse disorder ) in honeybees and other pollinators. I don't know for sure if that is the case. There are studies that disprove it and there are also studies that seem to say yes that is the problem.
We do know that CCD is a real problem, whatever the cause.
If we lose one of our main pollinators we have also lost most plant life as we know it.

Sorry for the hijack... Carry on.

Generally I've heard that CCD is caused by the defoliants that the GMOs are engineered to be resistant to.

[Jaglavak]

Latest info points to neonicitoids. The EU has banned them for an evaluation period of two years, but since the EPA is completely sold out we are still "studying the situation".

More on GMOs this evening, got chores to do.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

The people who compare it to historical cross-breeding are risible.

Gosh, you've defended your position admirably there. My opinion has completely changed

Perhaps you could try to explain how modifying a plant to have certain characteristics in a lab, by changing it's genetic code, is so different to modifying a plant to have certain characteristics in a nursery, by changing it's genetic code.

Or is it your usual schtick of MONEY!! and SCIENCE!! are EVIL!!?

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Craneop2

It is also widely believed that GMO are a cause of CCD (colony collapse disorder ) in honeybees and other pollinators.

It's also "widely believed" that Obama is a stealth Muslim and that Bush Jr, personally, hand-planted explosives set to go off on 9/11.

I don't know that's a good criteria to base an argument on.

[Glazer]

Without the increased crop yields that GMOs provide millions of people would starve. The biggest problem is that over half of all seed stock comes from a limited number of suppliers. The lack of genetic diversity is a handicap that will bite us some day. One blight on the corn, soy or rice crops and millions will starve. Starve now or starve later what a choice.

[Glazer]

Originally Posted by PSXer

God didn't intend vegetables to have genes

Thanks for the laugh.

[Lounsbury]

First, once upon a time I worked in this industry, for the primary science competitor to the American Monsanto. I was in investment in/management of IP in fact. Has been more than a decade though.

Second, Glazer has it:

Originally Posted by Glazer

Without the increased crop yields that GMOs provide millions of people would starve. The biggest problem is that over half of all seed stock comes from a limited number of suppliers. The lack of genetic diversity is a handicap that will bite us some day. One blight on the corn, soy or rice crops and millions will starve. Starve now or starve later what a choice.

However, it is not genetic modification that is the problem, re the later. It is vast monocropping. Genetic modification of plants is not the cause nor the primary driver of this phenomena - which exists quite nicely without GenMod that so scares the ignorant, using traditional GenMod (that is selective breeding).

There is not a way around that at this time, although GenMod opens to door for both more rapid response to plant pandemics than traditional plant selection and breeding.

As such GenMod is about the only way eventual human food catastrophe can be avoided - as both this, and other issues are not easily dealt with in near term via mere traditional genetic modification via selective breeding and cross-breeding.

furhter of course, most of the opposition to GenMod is at once hysteric know-nothing emotional reaction and hysterical in its ignorant confusion. Viz Jaggie confusing (à la his lending rant) plant selection for mass production with GenMod, the confusion in this thread between utterly unrelated issues and GenMod and the general sheer ignorance on the science overall. It is entirely true that vegetables selected for mass production and distribution - under entirely traditional selection, no scary modification - have lower nutritional values than prior varieties. Sadly via traditional genmod via selection, the features that led to more durability in handling and shelf life have frequently undercut nutritive value (as a wide and sweeping generalisation). And yet people are better fed than ever before in history. My the conundrum....

In fact of course greater resistance, shelf life etc. leads to better accessibility for longer periods of time, such that the loss in nutritive value is more than offset so far by the positive of improved accessibility.

Then again, as well, lab GenMod carries the strong potential to achieve more durable shelf stable vegetables with improved nutritive values, and even entirely new bio-available nutritive features. This is particularly powerful for emerging markets with less (e.g. the Golden Rice project to develop a staple rice variety with new and better micro-nutrient availability, notably beta carotene).

But merely using Genetic modification as a scare word has underminded such efforts, with vague ill-informed warnings and people confusing utterly unrelated issues.

In short, general fuzzy headed reflexive anti-corporate Left emotive wrongheadedness.

Reason the second, the top three GMO seed companies now control over half the world seed market, and they are some seriously evil sons of bitches.

As usual Jaggie merely advanced inchoate dislike of Big Things and Things with Money without any logical or genuinely informed rationale behind it.

Originally Posted by Steophan

As long as we also label anything that's been selectively bred over the last god knows how many millennia with the same label, it's fine.

That's right, very obviously if you're not eating ancestral corn, it must be labeled.

GM food is not the problem. The problem is people's demand for, frankly, shit, cheap food means suppliers will cater for that, using whatever methods they can.

The problem is there are 9 billion people and population is growing, but land is not getting more available.

Further the problem is that soil depletion and climactic stress are increasing, while reserves of key items like phosphates for cheap fertiliser are rather more limited than commonly realised.

Ergo, either there is innovation in food genetics, or in the lifetime of at least my children, real Malthusian problems arise.

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

Even you aren't stupid enough to believe that drivel. The vast majority of the article wasn't even about modern genetically modified crops which people call "GMOs", but about historically modified crops that people call "crops."

Oh he is that stupid. Or reflexively pig-headed and so prone to blind emotional reaction knee jerks.....

Originally Posted by Craneop2

It is also widely believed that GMO are a cause of CCD (colony collapse disorder ) in honeybees and other pollinators. I don't know for sure if that is the case. ...
Sorry for the hijack... Carry on.

A perfect example of disinformation and sheer confusion where unrelated issues are confused with GenMod seeds.

Originally Posted by mswas

Lesson 4: Lounsbury is going to side with big money no matter what, every time. And he's going to use rude and abusive language to belittle anyone who disagrees with him. It's all very nouveau behavior.

No the lesson is I post on things I know about, and so frequently you and Jaggie drivel on about things you know very little about, but have a priori largely political and emotional reactions to based on your various and sundry prejudices. And you're both have the analytical capacities of adolescents.

This being a step up from KiddieV

Originally Posted by KidVermicious

I'm in favor of labeling the stuff, for sure. With the amount of money they're making, I don't trust 'em to have my health at the very front of their list of things to be worried about.

And to think he sneered at Paul over Paul's supposed intellectual immaturity.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Latest info points to neonicitoids. The EU has banned them for an evaluation period of two years, but since the EPA is completely sold out we are still "studying the situation".

More on GMOs this evening, got chores to do.

As a point of order and clarification
Neoniitiods have nothing to do with GenMod (this insecticide type is used for coating seeds), and were introduced as being less toxic to non-targeted insects. As it happens it appears a combo of industrial over-working of bee populations (bee farming) may be leading to, as an article put it, "a death by a thousand cuts" from over dense colonies hosting mites combined with insecticide exposures, etc.

Of course among the slovenly this is all GMO....

Originally Posted by Steophan

Gosh, you've defended your position admirably there. My opinion has completely changed

Perhaps you could try to explain how modifying a plant to have certain characteristics in a lab, by changing it's genetic code, is so different to modifying a plant to have certain characteristics in a nursery, by changing it's genetic code.

Or is it your usual schtick of MONEY!! and SCIENCE!! are EVIL!!?

The only point of difference is the potential to introduce something entirely outside of the plant genome generally (but not outside of a particular subject plant genome).

Well and the speed.

Originally Posted by Glazer

Thanks for the laugh.

Indeed.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Or is it your usual schtick of MONEY!! and SCIENCE!! are EVIL!!?

I have never said anything resembling this on any forum anywhere ever. So you must be too stupid to talk to and I will try and consider your disability when engaging with you in the future.

You aren't defending science you are anti-science. You are the one arguing from religion and anti-inquiry. You are the one arguing the side of providing people with less information.

Those that are for labelling are pro-science, pro-knowledge, pro-information. Those arguing against labelling are arguing pro-ignorance and anti-science, pro-ideology over rational inquiry.

No scientist ever in all of history thought that having less information was better.

Lounsbury That applies to you as well. You two are the ones taking a pro-ignorance stance. Not Jag, and not myself. I made no claim other than that long-term studies of genetic meddling in the food supply have not been undertaken. If you have evidence to the contrary pony up.

Or stick with your religious pro-corporatist agenda where you equate corporate brand identity with science and rational inquiry. You adopt rationality as a pose. You're believing your own hype.

[mswas]

Also, cross-bred food IS labelled. That's why you don't label a Red Delicious apple as a Grannie Smith.

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

As usual Jaggie merely advanced inchoate dislike of Big Things and Things with Money without any logical or genuinely informed rationale behind it.

True dat. But I will grant that perhaps antitrust law needs to be rethought. The large companies (as you doubtless know and were probably in charge of ) have been very successful at purchasing tiny companies with essentially zero market share which would have quickly become large competitors with large market shares in just a few years. The US justice department has been way too aggressive about preventing these kinds of mergers in tech; I'm willing at least to suppose for argument's sake that they've not been aggressive enough on the food front.

Originally Posted by mswas

Also, cross-bred food IS labelled. That's why you don't label a Red Delicious apple as a Grannie Smith.

Well, it may be labled. You can sell a Red Delicious, you can sell a Grannie Smith, you can even get in trouble if you mislabel one as the other (and sell them to colorblind people, I suppose) but you can also, if you choose, just put out a sign that says "apples" and sell any varietal or any combination of them. Likewise, there's "wheat." If someone chooses to sell a wheat without lab-added genes, I believe he should feel free to do so and label it accordingly. If a Monsanto customer chooses, he should feel free to sell his wheat as "New and Improved Insect-Resistant Wheat." And if someone wants to re-grow wheat taken from Iraqi ruins and sell it as "Levant Heritage Wheat," he should be able to do so. More freedom = more choices = better.

[mswas]

So a synthetic pseudo-wheat you should be able to sell it and call it wheat even if it isn't actually wheat?

I am noticing a common theme here. It seems like certain people will always come out in favor of the party that lies by omission in business transactions.

[ryevermouthbitters]

Alternatively, people involved deeply in commerce wish there to be lots of customers, so take a stand which is against mass starvation. Also, people who have an understanding of science know what a lie is and isn't.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

The problem is there are 9 billion people and population is growing, but land is not getting more available.

Further the problem is that soil depletion and climactic stress are increasing, while reserves of key items like phosphates for cheap fertiliser are rather more limited than commonly realised.

Ergo, either there is innovation in food genetics, or in the lifetime of at least my children, real Malthusian problems arise.

You know what, I was taking a much smaller picture view than that, and only thinking about developed countries. There's certainly massive demand for cheap processed crap here, and the "dangers" of GM food pale compared to the very real health dangers of massively oversalted fast food full of trans fats. I'm trying to get healthier at the moment, and I'll be looking at the nutrients in the food I get, not the exact method by which they got there.

That said, of course, you are entirely right about the big picture. There is a massive, and growing, need for good, nutritious, cheap food in the world, and if genetic modification can meet that need, it should be applauded. I don't know enough about it to know if GM is the only way that it can be provided, but I don't doubt it will be a major part of it.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

So a synthetic pseudo-wheat you should be able to sell it and call it wheat even if it isn't actually wheat?

I am noticing a common theme here. It seems like certain people will always come out in favor of the party that lies by omission in business transactions.

What is "synthetic pseudo-wheat"?

You've done well here. In a two paragraph, three sentence post, you've managed SCIENCE=EVIL!! in the first paragraph, and BUSINESS=EVIL!! in the second, without a single thing backing them up.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Steophan

You know what, I was taking a much smaller picture view than that, and only thinking about developed countries. There's certainly massive demand for cheap processed crap here, and the "dangers" of GM food pale compared to the very real health dangers of massively oversalted fast food full of trans fats. I'm trying to get healthier at the moment, and I'll be looking at the nutrients in the food I get, not the exact method by which they got there.

That said, of course, you are entirely right about the big picture. There is a massive, and growing, need for good, nutritious, cheap food in the world, and if genetic modification can meet that need, it should be applauded. I don't know enough about it to know if GM is the only way that it can be provided, but I don't doubt it will be a major part of it.

I did not mean that as direct criticism, but to properly situate GenMod for seeds.

Americans, as usual in their overfed, myopic provincialism, utterly ignore this issue which is truly crucial.

Now, as I am making frontier markets food issues a principal business focus and am working on a business proposition in this area, it is of great concern.

One begins to learn the statistics - on primary productivity and on loss rates of produce, from simply low resistance of traditional produce to handling, the pious inanities about "heritage produce" are rather starkly revealed to be the privileged provincial mumblings of the spoiled overweight Left inclined children Left a few select N. hemisphere countries.

99% of humanity has rather different concerns that the myopic, ill-informed opposition of the wooley headed pseudo-environmental Left in the developed world are undermining - the 1% Privilege to use their figures...

GenMod to improve resistance to drought, to soil salinisation, while maintaining micro-nutrients and improving produce life span naturally are far better solutions than an escalating race

There are, to be sure, genuine concerns that certain traits not get out into the wild. Notably certain resistance traits (disease, insect) where either they might have negative impact on say good insect populations or rather more likely of concern, generate resistance in the wild rendering the traits pointless.

It's appropriate to have rational, science based controls and oversight. At my old firm (this going back to the mid to late 90s) we bitterly cursed the strong-arm lawyer-driven antics of Monsanto which undermined our position of reasonable accommodation (there's a reason why in the Just So Tales about bad corporate actors it's almost always Monsanto in the tale, and I will observe back in the day when I kept up with this, in those tales which were not pure fabrication and had a kernel of truth re bad acting, it was always Monsanto...).

However in most of these cases it quickly becomes clear that there isn't proper science or fact behind them, but knee jerk anti-corporatism and often anti-science Luddite opposition combined with gross ignorance of what traits and modifications are actually involved.

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

Alternatively, people involved deeply in commerce wish there to be lots of customers, so take a stand which is against mass starvation. Also, people who have an understanding of science know what a lie is and isn't.

Quite.

Originally Posted by mswas

So a synthetic pseudo-wheat you should be able to sell it and call it wheat even if it isn't actually wheat?

I am noticing a common theme here. It seems like certain people will always come out in favor of the party that lies by omission in business transactions.

Pray define what is wheat and what would not qualify as wheat. Do use objective science based and verifiable reference factors.

Regardless as bio-engineering is far away from synthetic pseudo-wheat, sadly enough, this is not a current worry.


ETA:

A correction to my prior use of the world pop number of 9 billion, actually current is 7bln, not 9bln by best estimates.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

True dat. But I will grant that perhaps antitrust law needs to be rethought.

I am not against reasonable anti-trust regulation either. US rules I am no longer familiar with, but I am familiar enough with the negative economic impact of letting corporate oligopolies come to dominate a given economy to support regulation to offset this.

The large companies (as you doubtless know and were probably in charge of ) have been very successful at purchasing tiny companies with essentially zero market share which would have quickly become large competitors with large market shares in just a few years.

To avoid doubt, a mere middle level cog was I.

That aside, yes, there is a serious negative in not having new little companies grow up to challenge the mastodons in an industry.

The US justice department has been way too aggressive about preventing these kinds of mergers in tech; I'm willing at least to suppose for argument's sake that they've not been aggressive enough on the food front.

I haven't an opinion as such there, but it seems to me that US has become rather to IT tech focused (the internet seduction) and has been neglecting - on private and on government side - developing innovation and science in bio and energy for example.

Internet rather has this chimeric potential for quick pay-off I suppose....

And if someone wants to re-grow wheat taken from Iraqi ruins and sell it as "Levant Heritage Wheat," he should be able to do so. More freedom = more choices = better.

Yes after all it is heritage and must be better.... at 25% of yield.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by mswas

Lounsbury That applies to you as well. You two are the ones taking a pro-ignorance stance. Not Jag, and not myself. I made no claim other than that long-term studies of genetic meddling in the food supply have not been undertaken. If you have evidence to the contrary pony up.

You frankly haven't the slightest clue and are merely stringing together word salad slogans.

Primo: genetic mudding in the food supply is itself merely ideological scare words. Man has been engaging in genetic muddling of the food supply for thousands of years, and for a century engaged in active cross breeding programs. Cross breeding programs that have aimed actively to introduce novel traits. The use of incoherent, undefined scare phrases is the mark of empty anti-science ideology.

Secundo: all laboratory genetic modifications of plants are subject in EU and USA to multi-year trials, first in laboratory then in field testing. The field work began in the 1980s and became more extensive in the 1990s. The science here is relatively new, but long-term studies have been going on as long as the fucking science has existed, so it is mere ignorant argument by assertion from ignorance to claim there are not studies. In fact in every instance both in private journals and in public ones like Trends in Plant Science which has 25 pages of citations.

Let me go back to the 1990s which I am more familiar with, a few citations on actual research and discusion to illusttate that you are not only wrong, but grotesquely wrong and nattering on in active ignorance:

1. Raybould, A.F. (1999). Transgenes and agriculture – going with the flow?. Trends Plant Sci. 4, 247–248. Full Text | PDF (31 kb) | CrossRef | PubMed
   
2. Baum, M., et al. (1992). Wide crosses in cereals. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 43, 117–143. PubMed
   
3. Goodman, R.M., et al. (1987). Gene transfer in crop improvement. Science 236, 48–54. PubMed
   
4. Miller, H.I. (1999). A rational approach to labeling biotech-derived foods. Science 284, 1471–1472. PubMed

It is further the case that as genetic science has advanced, that we have learned that the supposed utterly novelty of our insertion of bacterial or viral or similar gene sequences in other genomes is in fact.... not a novelty at all.

In fact this has occurred, via routes not yet understood, naturally over the several billion years of biological history, such that plants and animals have in their genomes viral, for example, DNA along for the ride for reasons unknown. To date man has achieved rather little that 'natural processes' did not achieve.

The problem in these discussions is the scientifically illiterate begin their understanding with the naive understanding of Natural Good, Man-Made Bad.

What amuses me, in a sour fashion, is the same parties that rail against say in the USA Republican Party anti-science ignorance and know-nothingism on climate science are in fact themselves when it comes to subjects that fall into areas of their own ideological knee-jerking, as equally know-nothings.

ETA: and btw a very useful arty blog post from NYT illustrating the destructive ignorant know-nothingism of the 'eco' hard Left anti-GenMod people.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

You frankly haven't the slightest clue and are merely stringing together word salad slogans.

Primo: genetic mudding in the food supply is itself merely ideological scare words. Man has been engaging in genetic muddling of the food supply for thousands of years, and for a century engaged in active cross breeding programs. Cross breeding programs that have aimed actively to introduce novel traits. The use of incoherent, undefined scare phrases is the mark of empty anti-science ideology.

Comment devoid of content. Basically just a fancy way of saying, "U t3h stoopid."

I understand that we have been cross-breeding for years. What is anti-science is claiming that doing a graft from one plant to another is the same as turning genes on and off in a laboratory.

Secundo: all laboratory genetic modifications of plants are subject in EU and USA to multi-year trials, first in laboratory then in field testing. The field work began in the 1980s and became more extensive in the 1990s. The science here is relatively new, but long-term studies have been going on as long as the fucking science has existed, so it is mere ignorant argument by assertion from ignorance to claim there are not studies. In fact in every instance both in private journals and in public ones like Trends in Plant Science which has 25 pages of citations.

Long-term testing is important. After all a lot of the nasty shit these companies put out that caused cancer in millions was also approved by the same rigorous testing procedures. If this were 40 years ago, you would be calling me an idiot for worrying about Agent Orange or DDT. Telling me I should trust the fancy folks who do the testing.

Let me go back to the 1990s which I am more familiar with, a few citations on actual research and discusion to illusttate that you are not only wrong, but grotesquely wrong and nattering on in active ignorance:

1. Raybould, A.F. (1999). Transgenes and agriculture – going with the flow?. Trends Plant Sci. 4, 247–248. Full Text | PDF (31 kb) | CrossRef | PubMed
   
2. Baum, M., et al. (1992). Wide crosses in cereals. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 43, 117–143. PubMed
   
3. Goodman, R.M., et al. (1987). Gene transfer in crop improvement. Science 236, 48–54. PubMed
   
4. Miller, H.I. (1999). A rational approach to labeling biotech-derived foods. Science 284, 1471–1472. PubMed

It is further the case that as genetic science has advanced, that we have learned that the supposed utterly novelty of our insertion of bacterial or viral or similar gene sequences in other genomes is in fact.... not a novelty at all.

In fact this has occurred, via routes not yet understood, naturally over the several billion years of biological history, such that plants and animals have in their genomes viral, for example, DNA along for the ride for reasons unknown. To date man has achieved rather little that 'natural processes' did not achieve.

I bolded the salient feature of your comment. Let's go on record that you have stated complete agreement with everything I have said thus far. No doubt you will continue to call me an idiot despite agreeing with me.

The problem in these discussions is the scientifically illiterate begin their understanding with the naive understanding of Natural Good, Man-Made Bad.

Ok, so I am an idiot because straw man. Cool story bro. Glad to have your rational logical fallacies to help guide me.

What amuses me, in a sour fashion, is the same parties that rail against say in the USA Republican Party anti-science ignorance and know-nothingism on climate science are in fact themselves when it comes to subjects that fall into areas of their own ideological knee-jerking, as equally know-nothings.

More straw men.

ETA: and btw a very useful arty blog post from NYT illustrating the destructive ignorant know-nothingism of the 'eco' hard Left anti-GenMod people.

So still you have not even addressed the central issue, which is whether or not we should label GMO food. You have just called everyone an idiot and claimed they are anti-science when the ONLY thing that has been said is that we should provide consumers with more information so that they can make their own choices about what food they put into their bodies.

Now, I am going to look at your cites to studies, but since you agreed that how these transfers occur in nature is as yet poorly understood, maybe, just maybe you'll start taking a pro-science and not a pro-egomaniac spewing insults randomly stance and recognize that long-term effects on a population being fed particular engineered products cannot be studied in a short period of time, you know, because long-term and short-term are antonyms. But I don't need to explain that you to you being that you are smarter than everyone on every issue.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

Alternatively, people involved deeply in commerce wish there to be lots of customers, so take a stand which is against mass starvation. Also, people who have an understanding of science know what a lie is and isn't.

Yes, agreed. So lets talk about the lie in this post. See it's a fairly subtle form of lie. You are basically trying to create a kind of factionalism. The pro-science group is the side you are on, and the other side is the anti-science group. It has nothing to do with rationality or any of those actual sciencey things, it's more about group identity and belonging.

Thus far not a single one of you has actually addressed the points I've made. Your arguments have been completely and totally ad hominems.

You have not made any substantive argument as to why giving consumers more information is anti-science.

Since you are calling me an idiot for the only argument I have made, which is that GMOs should be labelled so that consumers can make informed choices. It is incumbent upon you to explain why my position is stupid or anti-science, rather than dancing around it and finding new and cleverer ways of saying the word 'idiot'.

I really want to hear the tortured rationalizations as to why providing more information is anti-science.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Steophan

You know what, I was taking a much smaller picture view than that, and only thinking about developed countries. There's certainly massive demand for cheap processed crap here, and the "dangers" of GM food pale compared to the very real health dangers of massively oversalted fast food full of trans fats. I'm trying to get healthier at the moment, and I'll be looking at the nutrients in the food I get, not the exact method by which they got there.

That said, of course, you are entirely right about the big picture. There is a massive, and growing, need for good, nutritious, cheap food in the world, and if genetic modification can meet that need, it should be applauded. I don't know enough about it to know if GM is the only way that it can be provided, but I don't doubt it will be a major part of it.

Since he over-estimated the population by about 30%, I would like to know how he is so right? Or if not, where does he get his population estimates of having 2 billion more people than most estimates stipulate.

[mswas]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Steophan

What is "synthetic pseudo-wheat"?

Wheat-like organic machines manufactured in a laboratory.

You've done well here. In a two paragraph, three sentence post, you've managed SCIENCE=EVIL!! in the first paragraph, and BUSINESS=EVIL!! in the second, without a single thing backing them up.

I never once said Science is evil. You are the anti-science faction. I never once said business is evil.

Since you cannot even understand what I am saying, why are you so certain I am wrong?

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

I haven't an opinion as such there, but it seems to me that US has become rather to IT tech focused (the internet seduction) and has been neglecting - on private and on government side - developing innovation and science in bio and energy for example.

This is incorrect. I thought finance was your thing. How can you not know that biotech is a fast growing industry in this country and that some of the biggest companies in America are biotech firms?

There are synthetic-bio DIY labs here in NYC where you can go and rent use of the equipment in order to perform experiments. They also have classes.

No one has neglected the biotech industry in America.

http://selectusa.commerce.gov/indust...-united-states

The U.S. Biotechnology Industry
The United States is the largest market and leading consumer of biotechnology products in the world, and home to more than 1,300 firms involved in the industry. Between 2001 and 2010, the U.S. bioscience industry grew by 6.4 percent, adding more than 96,000 jobs. By comparison, total employment for all private sector industries in the United States fell by 2.9 percent, losing more than 3 million jobs (source: Battelle/BIO State Bioscience Initiatives, published June 2012).

There are more than 5.5 million scientists, engineers and technicians in the United States; 1.3 million people directly involved in biosciences; and another 5.8 million workers in related industry sectors. Business opportunities in this field for small and medium-sized enterprises, universities and research institutions are extensive. Research and development in the U.S. biotechnology sector drives the commercialization of products for domestic consumption and international trade.

With the world’s largest scientific research base and longstanding government support for biomedical and other biotechnology research and development, the United States maintains a competitive environment for the development and commercialization of biotechnology.

So, the US is leading the world in biotech, it's a major growth sector, employing millions of people and yet the US is neglecting it.

Sorry, you sir, are the idiot. But keep up your nouveau chav insult as argument style. Your acolytes ryeversmouthbitters and steophan totally buy it. Keep it up.

Meanwhile, I will wait for y'all to demonstrate how keeping information from people is 'pro-science'.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

You have not made any substantive argument as to why giving consumers more information is anti-science.

Two reasons. Firstly, as you so amply demonstrate in this thread, people don't have a fucking clue what GM actually is. Secondly, you'd have to put it on every single item, there is no actual, meaningful information to give out.

Humanity has been modifying it's food for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of years. But if it would please you to insist that every pack of carrots has to say "WARNING - COLOUR MODIFIED TO BE MORE PLEASING IN THE MIDDLE AGES" (cite) or whatever, go for it. Just ditch the retarded premise that we're doing anything substantially different now.

There's a separate argument that selecting crops for their resistance to pesticides or weedkillers is dangerous, as it allows more of the chemicals to be used, and may spread to the wild. But that has nothing to do with GM versus selective breeding.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

Wheat-like organic machines manufactured in a laboratory.

So, things that don't exist, and to my knowledge are not being developed? Yeah, useful contribution...

I never once said Science is evil. You are the anti-science faction. I never once said business is evil.

No explicitly no, not in this thread. But everything you write drips with contempt for science, for business, for progress. For the things that make our lives more comfortable, and very often better, and that allow us to create the luxuries that undeniably make them better.

Since you cannot even understand what I am saying, why are you so certain I am wrong?

I understand very well what you are saying. It seems I, and Lounsbury, among others, understand better than you yourself do.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Two reasons. Firstly, as you so amply demonstrate in this thread, people don't have a fucking clue what GM actually is. Secondly, you'd have to put it on every single item, there is no actual, meaningful information to give out.

This is an anti-science position. Even the GMO companies contend that their product is a unique creation of their laboratories. Literally NO ONE involved in this debate says what you are saying. Neither the GMO companies, nor the anti-GMO activists say that there is nothing unique about GMO products.

Humanity has been modifying it's food for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of years. But if it would please you to insist that every pack of carrots has to say "WARNING - COLOUR MODIFIED TO BE MORE PLEASING IN THE MIDDLE AGES" (cite) or whatever, go for it. Just ditch the retarded premise that we're doing anything substantially different now.

Ok, if you are too stupid to know the difference between GMO and grafting or cross-breeding, then that's cool. You're scientifically illiterate, it's cool.

There's a separate argument that selecting crops for their resistance to pesticides or weedkillers is dangerous, as it allows more of the chemicals to be used, and may spread to the wild. But that has nothing to do with GM versus selective breeding.

It has everything to do with labelling since GMOs are more likely to have higher trace amounts of pesticides contained in them. Which you would know if you'd bothered to give the issue even a cursory reading.

Too bad you're anti-science and don't even bother to read the other side's arguments before refuting them. You know, like actual scientists do.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

I understand that we have been cross-breeding for years. What is anti-science is claiming that doing a graft from one plant to another is the same as turning genes on and off in a laboratory.

Case in point for your ignorance. Neither of these are cross-breeding or genetic modification. Neither is cross breeding the same as selection for a particular characteristic - it's rather the opposite, an attempt to bring new characteristics into a breed.

You clearly understand nothing of this subject. I'm hardly an expert, but I'm vastly more knowledgeable than you.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Steophan

So, things that don't exist, and to my knowledge are not being developed? Yeah, useful contribution...

Most things that exist are not to your knowledge. You have demonstrated that you haven't even read the literature of the side you are refuting. So you don't even know what the straw man you accuse me of being has said.

I am NOT anti-GMO.

No explicitly no, not in this thread. But everything you write drips with contempt for science, for business, for progress. For the things that make our lives more comfortable, and very often better, and that allow us to create the luxuries that undeniably make them better.

Only to an idiot like you. Here you display your bias in full force. You just want the creature comforts and see any sort of questioning of them as being dangerous to your standard of living. So your anti-science ideology is based on wanting the next cool thing that can be manufactured for you to purchase. Hey, it's cool, I dig it, I have a 50 inch HDTV, I can relate.

I understand very well what you are saying. It seems I, and Lounsbury, among others, understand better than you yourself do.

[/quote]

Nope, you are entirely wrong. You are arguing against someone who is anti-GMO, which I am not. You are arguing against someone who is anti-business, which I am not. My company services hedge funds for Chrissakes. If I was anti-business, why would I be building a software company that services hedge funds?

In my social circle I count several dozen working research scientists. People working everywhere from bioscience to quantum mechanics. None of them has even once accused me of being anti-science.

Your patron Lounsbury has said a number of things that are demonstrably false. The world has 9billion people. The US doesn't focus on Biotech as a growth industry. So go ahead, tighten those bonds, keep being his useful idiot.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Case in point for your ignorance. Neither of these are cross-breeding or genetic modification. Neither is cross breeding the same as selection for a particular characteristic - it's rather the opposite, an attempt to bring new characteristics into a breed.

You clearly understand nothing of this subject. I'm hardly an expert, but I'm vastly more knowledgeable than you.

This non-sequitur isn't even a valid response to what I said.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mswas

Even the GMO companies contend that their product is a unique creation of their laboratories. Literally NO ONE involved in this debate says what you are saying. Neither the GMO companies, nor the anti-GMO activists say that there is nothing unique about GMO products.

Fucking hell you're stupid. Yes, of course each product is an individual creation of the lab. Just as every breed is an individual product of the nursery. They are different means to the same end - that is, an objectively improved product. By which I mean, one which matches a set of specific, measurable criteria for improvement. Criteria that do not include "upsets the ignorant hippie".

If you want to be sure your food doesn't contain pesticide residue, buy food that wasn't produced with pesticides. That's already clearly labelled, with legal standards supporting the labelling. Again, whether the crop is GM or not is irrelevant. Frankly, I'd rather take the minute risk from pesticides that the rather larger one of starving half the world. Odd view from a right winger, I'm sure you think, but there you go. Think of that next time you eat your organic lentils whilst Occupying somewhere.

[Steophan]

Oh, keep posting your nonsense that you're not anti science and anti business. I'm not the only person who's read your other posts.

[mswas]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Fucking hell you're stupid. Yes, of course each product is an individual creation of the lab. Just as every breed is an individual product of the nursery. They are different means to the same end - that is, an objectively improved product. By which I mean, one which matches a set of specific, measurable criteria for improvement. Criteria that do not include "upsets the ignorant hippie".

The bolded is the entire crux of your entire argument. You just want to make fun of hippies. Beyond that you have nothing at all to say.

If you want to be sure your food doesn't contain pesticide residue, buy food that wasn't produced with pesticides. That's already clearly labelled, with legal standards supporting the labelling. Again, whether the crop is GM or not is irrelevant. Frankly, I'd rather take the minute risk from pesticides that the rather larger one of starving half the world. Odd view from a right winger, I'm sure you think, but there you go. Think of that next time you eat your organic lentils whilst Occupying somewhere.

So you basically just ignored what i said.

GMOs that are resistant to pesticides have higher amounts of trace pesticide in them when they get to market.

Let me be clear, I know and understand this issue FAR BETTER than you do. Like several orders of magnitude. I am not anti-GMO. I am pro-labelling. And it is ridiculous that organic food has to pay a premium to label the fact that it doesn't use those same pesticides, that is part of why it's more expensive because the organic certification licensing is more expensive.

Your defending of GMOs is completely off-topic. No one is saying ban GMOs. I am saying LABEL GMOs. So every defense of GMOs you type is a wasted post. The world isn't going to starve because Monsanto's distributors have to go into Filemaker Pro and add a little white box that says GMO.

[mswas]

The tags are right. Steophan is too stupid to argue with, and arguing with him just makes me stupider.

Back to SEO to help my friend's business get a higher pagerank and then on to a meeting about how to implement some acoustic design in a new business incubator space. You know, all that anti-business stuff.

[Glazer]

I wish someone would develop a synthetic wheat. Or any staple crop. If it could be manufactured at lower cost in petro and land it could save us from over population for a good long while. And be key in our moving out into the Solar system. Which could save us for good.

Heritage crops are a good thing as well. If mono-crops fail in a big way. It would be nice to have something to fall back on. Billions would die but those who survive might stand a chance.