Russ said:
Says the crackpot who is on the wrong side of the issue from basically the entire scientific, farming and regulatory communities.
You don't know what "side" I'm on, apparently.
Two of the major risks being run by the corporate profit driven, careless, dangerous, and corrupt current deployment of a couple of borderline GMs in a handful of major crops, are
1) what will happen to this most valuable and promising of fields and its public image/dealings if things do go badly sideways on Monsanto or Syngenta or one of 'em - as they very well may with this kind of management (look at the miserable situation we ended up with vis a vis nuclear power, mostly because the experts in charge deployed the stuff carelessly all over the planet and then lied about it when it blew up in their faces).
2) What will happen to this most valuable and promising of fields if it remains dominated by the increasing success and achievements of large corporations attempting to maximize profit. If the current deployment never crashes, never goes bad, never has bad luck or gets blindsided by what it refused to see coming, and continues to divert the efforts and resources available almost entirely to corporate goals and shareholder profits, that would be a tragedy.
Russ said:
Right: "accountability" for bad effects that don't exist, but you want to imply (or flat-out lie) do.
Some of the obvious and predicted bad effects, the ones we knew how and why to look for in advance, have been well documented: the rapid increase in resistance to Bt and glyphosate among target organisms, for example, or the abetting of imprudent large scale deployment of neonicotinoid seed coatings that invariably accompanies the farming methods adapted to the currently marketed GMOs, or a little of the economic and political effects in places vulnerable to foreign corporate domination of local politics (the rise in food insecurity and credit dependency accompanying the introduction of GMO crops in some places, say).
There has been no accountability for any of that - when faced with the recent necessity of replacing or augmenting glyphosate resistance GMs in my area, for example, due to the rapid development of resistant weeds, Monsanto faced no penalty or even serious public criticism for the damage it had done to the effectiveness of that formerly very useful, cheap, and comparatively benign herbicide. That was predicted, defined, and soon to be costly harm done to identifiable people - Monsanto will never have to pay a nickel for it. In fact, they tried to sneak in approval for their GM fix - a completely new and un-researched GM for resistance to 2, 4-D they had stacked on the glyphosate resistance - under the cover of the earlier and imprudent approval for glyphosate resistance, as if GMOs were interchangeable and approval of one was approval of any and all.
The larger issue is the scale of the risks undertaken (medical, economic, political, ecological, even agricultural) and the lack of monitoring, prudent management, or even acknowledgment of them - at least some of which appears to be intentional. That is easily visible - the legal forbidding of identification labels merely the most flagrant manifestation. People don't walk into a bank wearing masks by accident.
Russ said:
At some point, you may become mature enough that you start realizing that people who spend lifetimes studying an issue aren't idiots or fools or liars. They are - gasp - actual experts.
I am well aware of the existence of expertise. It's worse, not better, if it's an expert claiming that "- From a scientific perspective, one would have great difficulty justifying not putting a GMO label on basically
everything we eat because essentially everything we eat is heavily genetically modified by humans.. ". The only excuse for such an ugly attempt at deception, such a blatant ploy to conceal what is going on, is ignorance.