genetically modified produce.

[Doreen]

Exactly as I was saying ......

Is there a reason you cannot discuss this with respect. I never asserted that those were the only sites or sources of information I had. I posted those links specifically to counter the notion that only uniformed people disagree with the position you hold. To show that scientists also held these beliefs and no small number. It was a specific response on a specific issue which you have now used to score emotional points and add nothing to the thread.

Is this an example of what you call evidence of assertions? Can you see why it was poor evidence?

You posted one link to one scientist. Does that now mean you only got information from one source?

Seriously, can you discuss this in a respectful manner?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Until such time that citizens in general can regulate the use of these tools, they should be banned because of how broad these tools can influence things.

Why not simply regulate the companies instead of banning a technology that could save millions of lives?

Very few people get to make anthrax strains in their basements, even corporations. Though that also is using tools.

This is a very good example of how wrong you are, making strains of anthrax is not a tool, the equipment to genetically modify and grow anthrax are "tools" such tools are used in everything from bioweapons labs to beer breweries to the fermenters that make GM yeast which produces all the world's supply of human insulin for diabetics, etc.

 

[Doreen]

Why not simply regulate the companies instead of banning a technology that could save millions of lives?

We cannot regulate the companies now and they are in a large part responsible for that. The precautionary principle has been thrown out of the window.

This is a very good example of how wrong you are, making strains of anthrax is not a tool, the equipment to genetically modify and grow anthrax are "tools" such tools are used in everything from bioweapons labs to beer breweries to the fermenters that make GM yeast which produces all the world's supply of human insulin for diabetics, etc.

The anthrax is a tool used in a variety of experiments and it is a tool to be used in war by some people. Sorry. If you google therapeutic uses of anthrax you will see it is considered a tool. I would give you direct link, but it is a power point display. Probably a number of sites will come up.

And genetically modified products are also being conceived of as tools.

Potentially dangerous products and processes need to be regulated. I do not think this is case right now. Money rules. Get regulation in line, then allow the products.

 

[ElectricFetus]

We cannot regulate the companies now and they are in a large part responsible for that. The precautionary principle has been thrown out of the window.

Of course we can still regulate the compainies its not like the whole world is the USA.

The anthrax is a tool used in a variety of experiments and it is a tool to be used in war by some people. Sorry. If you google therapeutic uses of anthrax you will see it is considered a tool.
I would give you direct link, but it is a power point display. Probably a number of sites will come up.
And genetically modified products are also being conceived of as tools.

Forgive me, technology is a better descriptor than tool. Anthrax is not a technology, GM is. I can't think of vary many technologies that are ban, maybe bioweapons.

Potentially dangerous products and processes need to be regulated. I do not think this is case right now. Money rules. Get regulation in line, then allow the products.

I'm all for regulations, but your asking to ban the whole thing.

 

[iceaura]

Why not simply regulate the companies instead of banning a technology that could save millions of lives?

We're better off banning it than allowing unregulated proliferation and use of it.

 

[Gravage]

Let's just say one thing. GM food will never be able to feed the world. Why?
Because the output of the invested ingredients on field is always less than 100%, and they have hpoed to be at least 300%. Well, wrong.
Not to mention that anything today is healthy at all. Chemical industries combined with GM food is all poison, that's why people our immunity systems are so weak, unless they are able to adapt.

 

[Doreen]

Of course we can still regulate the compainies its not like the whole world is the USA.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. There are regulatory problems around the world in relation to these and other companies. To a degree I consider unsafe.

Forgive me, technology is a better descriptor than tool. Anthrax is not a technology, GM is. I can't think of vary many technologies that are ban, maybe bioweapons.

No, there aren't many or perhaps even any that are totally banned. Nevertheless I think a moratorium - perhaps that's a more positive word - would be a rational, cautious response in this case. It might be in other cases as well.

I'm all for regulations, but your asking to ban the whole thing.

Until such time that the companies actually are regulated in a democratic fashion or really representative fashion, yes.

By the way. Thank you for responding to my arguments with arguments and not ad homs. I mean that seriously in the context of this thread.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Right now corporations can play fast and loose with this incredibly dangerous tool.

No.

This is entirely typical of the agenda-laden, ill-informed, emotive and misleading nonsense that I was talking about, along with other deliberately emotive phrases like “Franken-food”.

It is NOT an "incredibly dangerous tool". That's simply a rubbish statement. In fact, it’s an entirely standard, common, everyday, tried-and-tested tool. I'm a geneticist and molecular biologist - I know.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

You posted one link to one scientist. Does that now mean you only got information from one source?

No. I don’t rely on the internet when it comes to this subject. I listen to actual academic scientists doing research on the topic (no, not those employed by the companies but university-employed agricultural scientists whom I know personally), and I listen to my own knowledge of genetics and molecule biology (in which a have a PhD and several years of subsequent research expertise). Both of these things tell me that most of the anti-GM arguments are a load of BS put forward by people who don’t understand what they’re talking about.

I posted those links specifically to counter the notion that only uniformed people disagree with the position you hold.

What you posted was nonsense. One was some sort of dubious “institute” and the other was pure journalism. They are biased, selective and inaccurate. If you want to be taken seriously, give us some science. Give us some peer-reviewed published scientific research, not journalistic fluff pieces.

Mind you, there is genuine science out there that indicates potential risks in the use of GM crops. There are potential risks with all new technology and no one (who knows what they are talking about) would say otherwise. As with all technology, we assess the risks and weigh the benefits using the consensus scientific opinion. The consensus opinion says it will be okay.

Of course, I’m sure you’d like to suggest that the majority of scientists argue against the use of the technology. But that’s merely your daydream. You can’t prove it because it’s not true.

I’ll give you one quick example. Here’s some research that indicates that GM rice will not spread to non-GM rice using only a small spatial separation.

New Phytol. 2007;173(2):346-53.

Dramatic reduction of crop-to-crop gene flow within a short distance from transgenic rice fields.
Rong et al.

Genetically modified (GM) rice with enhanced agronomic traits and pharmaceutical uses are ready for widespread adoption. Little is known about isolation requirements for achieving stringent transgene confinement in rice. To investigate the extent of pollen-mediated crop-to-crop transgene flow, we conducted a field experiment with four plot-size treatments of adjacent GM and nonGM rice (Oryza sativa) in China. Three insect-resistant GM rice (Bt/CpTI) and nonGM isogenic lines were used in the study. The hygromycin-resistance transgene (hpt) marker was used to screen seeds from the nonGM rice rows at different distance intervals from GM rice plots. Based on the examination of > 2.1 million germinated seeds, we found a dramatic reduction in transgene frequencies with increasing distance from the GM crop, ranging from c. 0.28% at 0.2 m to < 0.01% at 6.2 m. In addition, different plot size did not significantly affect the frequencies of gene flow. In conclusion, pollen-mediated crop-to-crop transgene flow in rice can be maintained at negligible levels with short spatial isolation. The model can also be applied to other crops with self- and wind-pollination.

 

[Scaramouche]

No.

This is entirely typical of the agenda-laden, ill-informed, emotive and misleading nonsense that I was talking about, along with other deliberately emotive phrases like “Franken-food”.

It is NOT an "incredibly dangerous tool". That's simply a rubbish statement. In fact, it’s an entirely standard, common, everyday, tried-and-tested tool. I'm a geneticist and molecular biologist - I know.

My brother was a genetics and microbiology guy too (works in another field now), and said the dangers of GM foods were very clear and obvious. He gave me a ton of examples once. I'll see if he'll send them to me again.

Until then, enjoy these:
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=93
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai

 

[ElectricFetus]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. There are regulatory problems around the world in relation to these and other companies. To a degree I consider unsafe.

There will always be regulatory problems, if you can handle that it will be a constant war between corporations why don't you advocate a totally different economic model?

No, there aren't many or perhaps even any that are totally banned. Nevertheless I think a moratorium - perhaps that's a more positive word - would be a rational, cautious response in this case. It might be in other cases as well.

Changing the word does not change the effect. by the way what warrants such a moratorium, what are the chances of detriment verse the chances of benefit?

Until such time that the companies actually are regulated in a democratic fashion or really representative fashion, yes.

So companies should have no lobbying forces?

 

[Doreen]

There will always be regulatory problems, if you can handle that it will be a constant war between corporations why don't you advocate a totally different economic model?

To me it is more than problems, but rather that there is a fundamental breach of oversight. If you have revolving door positions between regulatory bodies and industry and other influence, via lobbying for example, that undermines representative control, the system cannot do what it is meant to do. Democracy is undermined at a fundamental not a detail level.

Changing the word does not change the effect. by the way what warrants such a moratorium, what are the chances of detriment verse the chances of benefit?

I could pass that question back to you. We are both working with our intuitions. We hear a lot about what GM foods can or will do, but I don't see enough evidence that it is doing it or that the corporations are in fact that interested in feeding the poor. It is not clear to me either that the kinds of agriculture they are fostering - where farmers essentially lease seeds and must also then subscribe to herbicides, for example, that go with the seeds - are really intended to keep soil healthy long term, set up situations where the world's poor are creating crops to eat - rather than specialized food products for the First World, or whether long term affects on ecosystems and people are really prioritized at all.

So companies should have no lobbying forces?

Lobbying is only part of the problem, but it is a part of that problem. The problems with undue, non-democratic influence in this industry concern me more than with other industries. In principle I am against the current increasing oligharhic trends in general. In practice I am more likely to protest, as here, in relation to specific industries whose influence I consider dangerous.

 

[ElectricFetus]

To me it is more than problems, but rather that there is a fundamental breach of oversight. If you have revolving door positions between regulatory bodies and industry and other influence, via lobbying for example, that undermines representative control, the system cannot do what it is meant to do. Democracy is undermined at a fundamental not a detail level.

Well then suggest your alternative government model.

I could pass that question back to you. We are both working with our intuitions. We hear a lot about what GM foods can or will do, but I don't see enough evidence that it is doing it or that the corporations are in fact that interested in feeding the poor.

There are many possible uses for GM plants, for example GM plants could produce life saving pharmaceuticals. Corporations are interested in selling a product that will provide farmers increased yield, thus the farmers will buy it because they get more profit, the total effect would be to increase world food production.

It is not clear to me either that the kinds of agriculture they are fostering - where farmers essentially lease seeds and must also then subscribe to herbicides, for example, that go with the seeds - are really intended to keep soil healthy long term, set up situations where the world's poor are creating crops to eat - rather than specialized food products for the First World, or whether long term affects on ecosystems and people are really prioritized at all.

valid concerns but this is not a problem limited to GM foods, rather your problem is with how corporations are implementing the technology, what you need to advocate is for the discontinuation of herbicide resistant plants packaged with herbicides due to violation of antitrust laws.

Lobbying is only part of the problem, but it is a part of that problem. The problems with undue, non-democratic influence in this industry concern me more than with other industries. In principle I am against the current increasing oligharhic trends in general. In practice I am more likely to protest, as here, in relation to specific industries whose influence I consider dangerous.

Again the oligarhy is a different problem, you need to attack that rather then its GM technology simply because it abuses GM technology, its like attacking a symptom of a disease rather then its cause.

 

[Mandana]

A woman here got a PHD by writing a thesis about Star Trek. Big deal. Ain't that impressive, sunshine. Especially when you can't tell the difference between selective breeding which has proven viable over thousands of years, and gene splicing and deploying untested grains which are infecting those viable grains.

As for "feeding the world"... not my problem. Africa has a huge amount of arable land, and the people sitting on it are not using it. They aren't building farms and hydro-electric dams and highways and such. They've been neglecting progress for a very long time, by their own choice. Much of Asia is the same. If they want to fuck around instead of developing, and then come begging to me for food, that's their bad luck. I'll throw them some scraps when and if I feel like it, but I have no obligation to do so.

In my opinion and experience, "PEOPLE" are not always responsible for how developed their countries are.Sometimes people are doing their best and other factors get in the way.In many cases its not "their own choice".Imagine growing crops on sahara,do you think that people living in the area are sitting on a huge amount of arable land?And "Africa" is not a country to consider that other areas will compensate for it.I understand people being hungry sitting on deserts.

 

[Lhuna]

Genetically modified production is damaging the DNA, isn't it? At least, it changes the genetical code. So it's bad for health. I prefer simple food but now genetically modified production is everywhere. This situation solves the problem of lack of food but doesn't solve the problem of people's health.

 

[Read-Only]

Genetically modified production is damaging the DNA, isn't it? At least, it changes the genetical code. So it's bad for health. I prefer simple food but now genetically modified production is everywhere. This situation solves the problem of lack of food but doesn't solve the problem of people's health.

"Bad for heath?" That's nothing but an assumption at this point - just like it was way back when everyone thought that tomatoes were poisonous.

 

[pjdude1219]

A woman here got a PHD by writing a thesis about Star Trek. Big deal. Ain't that impressive, sunshine. Especially when you can't tell the difference between selective breeding which has proven viable over thousands of years, and gene splicing and deploying untested grains which are infecting those viable grains.

As for "feeding the world"... not my problem. Africa has a huge amount of arable land, and the people sitting on it are not using it. They aren't building farms and hydro-electric dams and highways and such. They've been neglecting progress for a very long time, by their own choice. Much of Asia is the same. If they want to fuck around instead of developing, and then come begging to me for food, that's their bad luck. I'll throw them some scraps when and if I feel like it, but I have no obligation to do so.

africa and asia were doing just fine precolonialism

 

[ElectricFetus]

africa and asia were doing just fine precolonialism

yeah they also had populations a fraction of what they have today.

 

[iceaura]

It is NOT an "incredibly dangerous tool". That's simply a rubbish statement. In fact, it’s an entirely standard, common, everyday, tried-and-tested tool. I'm a geneticist and molecular biologist - I know.

The fact that the people actually doing this stuff don't recognize the risks involved does not make these techniques safer in application.

At one time we were facing a large body of superbly expert physicists, leaders in the field, who were actively advocating the use of plutonium fission reactors to blow subway tunnels between New York and LA, create deep water ports in Alaska, and power airplanes in transcontinental flights.

Later, we were the guinea pigs of the experiments of a large body of superbly expert organic chemists who gave us modified trans fats in most of our food.

Now yet another body of experts is telling us they know what they are doing,

as they use techniques invented less than a generation ago to tinker with the basic genetics of self-reproductive organisms,

organisms not yet thoroughly studied in their ordinary environment,

which they plan to broadcast into the as yet all but unstudied general environment we depend on,

and replace much of a ten thousand year old agricultural base we depend on

and a hugely complex food economy we depend on,

with stuff invented less than ten years ago,

under no oversight but that of corporations whose profits are riding on them, and who face little or no liability for unpredicted consequences.

just like it was way back when everyone thought that tomatoes were poisonous.

There was no such time. People have been eating tomatoes since before they adapted them to agriculture.

 

[John99]

Originally Posted by hercules
It is NOT an "incredibly dangerous tool". That's simply a rubbish statement. In fact, it’s an entirely standard, common, everyday, tried-and-tested tool. I'm a geneticist and molecular biologist - I know.

Its like when the townfolk go searching for vampires. The carry pitchforks and make a lot of noise, if you can get them to just go home and read a comic book you are ahead of the game but they will still believe in vampires. Why? because they're simpltons.