skeptical said:
iceaura has some weird ideas surrounding the Bt toxin. For a start, the only time it has been used by broadcast spraying indiscriminately was by the organic agriculture industry, before GM products.
Hence its current, and temporary, usefulness as an indiscriminately employed broadcast insecticide - a new, cheaper means of broadcasting having been invented.
The destruction of the usefulness of BT in its traditional and much better arranged employments being one of GM's side benefits for industrial agribusiness, at the expense of everyone else.
Skeptical said:
The alternative to Bt cotton is products like endosulfan, which kill everything in sight, including amphibians and owls
One more reason to protect the effectiveness of BT, rather than trash it for a few years of corporate profit at everyone's expense.
Those substitutes are of course the future of this kind of agribusiness: after resistance develops, and the other models of agriculture have been bankrupted and deprived of important resources and otherwise forced out of business,
an industrial agriculture model allowed to employ these techniques so irresponsibly will own the economy. So we get hit from both ends: the remnants of more responsible spot use of pesticides seeing its non-poisonous means rendered useless, and the industrial model monopoly ascendent now faced with endosulfan etc in mass quantities or disaster.
Skeptical said:
16 years of experience. Hundreds of millions of consumers.
We do not have "16 years" of "experience" with GM food, in general. A couple of trial products have been available for that long, and sparse and thin surveys of a couple of their potential short term effects have been done - that's it. Other than that, we're mostly flying blind with brand new stuff.
Skeptical said:
The risk from eating GM food is equally trivial, and we should not feel we have to avoid such foods, or even insist on silly labels.
You have no idea what the risk of some of these GM techniques and modifications is. Not a clue - not within several orders of magnitude could you reliably calculate the odds on some GM product causing a major disaster in the next fifty years or so. You don't have the information. Nobody does.
ultra said:
Biotech companies need to do proper testing, and make their results available or people will continue to think they are trying to hide something. Why is this so hard to understand?
See Chimpkin's Updike quote above.
Requiring adequate testing and responsible use in all relevant fields would derail a very greasy gravy train. What they are dealing with is so far from being understood in its effects and consequences that they would be spending the next twenty years in lab and field trials.
tantulus said:
there needs to be a theoretical basis for a threat to exist before you search for empirical proof. Skeptical states that such risks exist but are minimal, but it needs to be stated in what ways such risks exist and in what ways they dont. For example the superweed theory and serious allergens from a specific inserted gene are credible theoretically (I think), but as far as I know the incoporation of genes into the body of a consumer isnt.
How about an unexpected result from a combination of medical genetic therapy - which commonly employs retrovirus derivatives, and uses similar insertion mechanisms, etc - and an existing genetic transfer in the gut microflora?
OK, not tjhe sort of epidemic stuff we are forced to sorry about in several other aspects of irresponsible GM employment, but theoretically not ruled out, eh?
tantulus said:
The absence of negative effects on biological or environmental grounds, repeated, from peer reviewed research of current GM crops and procedures cannot be easily ignored imo
They have hardly scratched the surface. Nothing can be concluded negatively from such meager and ill-coordinated efforts, relative to the subject.
If you are confused in this matter, just look at the emergency efforts required to investigate whether GM corn was killing hives of honeybees - clearly they didn't know lots of stuff about GM and bees before the bees started dying, right? They still haven't ruled it out completely, after several years now. And that's just one narrow little issue, and it's one they actually know much more about than most - bees are well studied and known, compared with (say) nematode diseases.