It tastes like the inside of an Erlenmeyer flask?

Ok so you want to move from GMOs to talk about patents and corporations and general farming problems. That's fine. But why single out GMOs in that case because those problems are present with all farming?

So you're weary of links to political sites we both generally disagree with? That's ok. I happen to think that Entine is a good science journalist and is about the only thing on Forbes I bother reading. But for a completely independent source on GMOs how about Kevin Folta? Here's his take on terminator seeds: http://kfolta.blogspot.fi/2013/08/this-is-copy-of-what-was-written-for.html

And Steven Novella, again a completely independent source, on the van Eenennaam study: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/

Nathanel Johnson's GMO-series on Grist is generally speaking very good; I'm glad you linked to it. Unfortunately in that link he speaks to a well-known crank and pro-organic activist, Benbrook. Here's a pretty good piece with lots of links (esp. Anastasia Bodnar's and Pamela Ronald's are worth reading) that criticizes Benbrook. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...ories-help-bad-science-go-viral/#.VOCSNDWli1F

Schmeiser's case is very interesting but must go do some other stuff. I'll try to take time in the evening to write about him.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
So why believe them now about GMO? If and when the ooops!! moment comes, it may be too late to go back the prior environment.
Click to expand...

So science was wrong sometimes and that's a good enough reason not to trust it now? I don't understand that. It's the best process we have of understanding anything at all and it is self-correcting. It works so well simply because it changes when evidence comes along.
 
originally posted by John Roberts:
And just to be clear, Mark, your disappointment with the end product is the fact that it was carcinogenic, not the fact that it was used to illegitimately defoliate 5 million acres of Vietnamese land? Because presumably even if it were properly produced it would have had the same effect in terms of defoliation?

Despite what you say, it was not just jungle; it was crops.

Oh I get it:

Air Force fuck #1: how can I kill those little fuckers if I can't see them?

Army fuck #1: and our boys have to crawl through all that thick jungle, illegitimate invasions are so hard!

Air force fuck #2: let's get rid of the trees!

John

P.S. When you see the players involved, punch them in the face for me!
Click to expand...

Sorry for not being clearer there. What was done was horrible, even in the context of a terrible war. But I place the blame for what was done squeely on the shoulders of the politicians and Army officers who developed the idea and then carried it out. The culpability of the chemical companies wasn't that they made herbicides, compounds with legitimate, non-military uses, but that what they made was such a toxic stew. Just to be ultra-clear, I am in no way defending any aspect of that war, a geopolitical clusterfuck of epic proportions.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
When I went to Disneyland, some 40 years ago, Monsanto had the best ride ever. They shrunk you so you could get inside the human cell. I hope it's still there.
Click to expand...

You remember that too, huh? Alas, the ride (along with Monsanto's + image) is gone.
 
Hey, didn't we have someone who worked at (or used to work at) Monsanto in Saint Louis? Why don't we call him out to defend the Evil Empire?
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
So why believe them now about GMO? If and when the ooops!! moment comes, it may be too late to go back the prior environment.
Click to expand...

So science was wrong sometimes and that's a good enough reason not to trust it now? I don't understand that. It's the best process we have of understanding anything at all and it is self-correcting. It works so well simply because it changes when evidence comes along.
Click to expand...
It's not pure science that is distrusted, but rather science used for a profit motive, which can result in overstatements of what is scientifically known and understatement of potential risks, all in the cause of personal profit.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
So why believe them now about GMO? If and when the ooops!! moment comes, it may be too late to go back the prior environment.
Click to expand...

So science was wrong sometimes and that's a good enough reason not to trust it now? I don't understand that. It's the best process we have of understanding anything at all and it is self-correcting. It works so well simply because it changes when evidence comes along.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, I don't want to talk about farming. I simply say that is the proper topic.

What I want to talk about is touched on this short post of yours: "...it changes when evidence comes along." Yes, yes, yes, it does! And, in the lab, we can wash out the petri dishes, sterilize the hood, and have at the new thing.

But with GMO planted all over the world, we can't do that. There is no going back. If we've made a terrible mistake, somehow, we're stuck, now and forever. That's the topic.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
So why believe them now about GMO? If and when the ooops!! moment comes, it may be too late to go back the prior environment.
Click to expand...

So science was wrong sometimes and that's a good enough reason not to trust it now? I don't understand that. It's the best process we have of understanding anything at all and it is self-correcting. It works so well simply because it changes when evidence comes along.
Click to expand...
It's not pure science that is distrusted, but rather science used for a profit motive, which can result in overstatements of what is scientifically known and understatement of potential risks, all in the cause of personal profit.
Click to expand...
Claude says it perfectly.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
It's not pure science that is distrusted, but rather science used for a profit motive, which can result in overstatements of what is scientifically known and understatement of potential risks, all in the cause of personal profit.
Click to expand...
And science used for the cause of political advantage *never* results in misstatements of the state of scientific knowledge or potential risks.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
So why believe them now about GMO? If and when the ooops!! moment comes, it may be too late to go back the prior environment.
Click to expand...

So science was wrong sometimes and that's a good enough reason not to trust it now? I don't understand that. It's the best process we have of understanding anything at all and it is self-correcting. It works so well simply because it changes when evidence comes along.
Click to expand...
It's not pure science that is distrusted, but rather science used for a profit motive, which can result in overstatements of what is scientifically known and understatement of potential risks, all in the cause of personal profit.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

And two things bother me in particular:
1: the monolithic focus on whether these food are safe to eat, rather than the social, geopolitical, and environmental impact of said crops and the companies that profit from them (which Jeff has hinted at). And please Otto, if you think, the deregulation of the gmo products does not have as much to do with politicking as the supposed thoroughness of their testing I suggest you look into the revolving cast of characters that move freely between the boards of the biotech giants, Dept of Ag, and the FDA.

2: The equally monolithic focus of the greater population and propogandists on GMO technology as THE problem instead of seeing it as a small piece of a much larger and scarier trend of aggressive profit and control strategies in our food system such food genome privitization, the resultant loss in biodiversity, and the consequent and potentially disastrous narrowing of our genetic adaptability to climate change and pest pressure. The current IP stuff happening in the food system is completely unprecedented.
 
Where is this pure science people seem to be suggesting exists someplace? In a laboratory? Really? Science without political or economic consequences, without prestige and career considerations at stake? Do we believe the physicists and chemists but not ag scientists and engineers? None of which is to take a position on whether GMO is good or bad.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
But with GMO planted all over the world, we can't do that. There is no going back. If we've made a terrible mistake, somehow, we're stuck, now and forever. That's the topic.
Click to expand...

Why would there be no going back? GMOs weren't put out there without any thought as to possible risks. And now 20+ years of growing them has shown that the only problems have been ones that are problems with conventional crops, too. And there are other varieties of soy and maize and whatever still available so if it looks like one of them is not working it is very possible to go back. I don't understand why you think we're stuck with it if. Can you elaborate on this point a bit more?

Claude, which risks do you think have been understated?
 
To Keith: non-sequitur, this is not an overtly political discussion; or, if it is, then I'll stake the position that those who set political goalposts aren't any more accurate than those who set the financial goalposts (and _still_ not relevant to the topic I posted)

To Cliff: most of the time, the variance between 'reality' and 'blurb' is wider outside the lab
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
But with GMO planted all over the world, we can't do that. There is no going back. If we've made a terrible mistake, somehow, we're stuck, now and forever. That's the topic.
Click to expand...

Why would there be no going back? GMOs weren't put out there without any thought as to possible risks. And now 20+ years of growing them has shown that the only problems have been ones that are problems with conventional crops, too. And there are other varieties of soy and maize and whatever still available so if it looks like one of them is not working it is very possible to go back. I don't understand why you think we're stuck with it if. Can you elaborate on this point a bit more?
Click to expand...
Twenty years is not much, really.

Why is there no going back? Well, unless you plan to criss-cross the globe with a microscope and a pair of forceps how are you going to capture all the pollen that was spread?
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

To Cliff: most of the time, the variance between 'reality' and 'blurb' is wider outside the lab
Click to expand...

I believe in logic and evidence, too. But I think you exaggerate the clarity of the line between lab and blurb. Who gets to pose questions? What constitutes proof?

What is the nature of the evidence we're talking about? What is the extent of the scientific consensus? The fact that scientists have been wrong before and that evil corporations stand to gain, on their own, do not constitute compelling arguments.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Twenty years is not much, really.

Why is there no going back? Well, unless you plan to criss-cross the globe with a microscope and a pair of forceps how are you going to capture all the pollen that was spread?
Click to expand...

20 years with no problems at all. This is dangerously starting to sound like no amount of study on GMOs is going to be enough for you!

GMOs and normal crops do not spread in such a fashion as you fear. So that's really not something you need to worry about.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Twenty years is not much, really.

Why is there no going back? Well, unless you plan to criss-cross the globe with a microscope and a pair of forceps how are you going to capture all the pollen that was spread?
Click to expand...

20 years with no problems at all. This is dangerously starting to sound like no amount of study on GMOs is going to be enough for you!

GMOs and normal crops do not spread in such a fashion as you fear. So that's really not something you need to worry about.
Click to expand...

No problems at all, Otto? Two that come readily to mind are the inadvertent spread of pollen from BT corn leading to widespread butterfly die-offs in neighboring plots, compounding the problem created by loss of habitat due to the widespread application of Roundup made possible by using Roundup-ready crops. There's also the danger posed by establishing monocultures of food staples, but that's not strictly limited to GMOs.

Hyperbole on both sides of the issue damages the respective positions. GMOs are neither an unalloyed good nor an unalloyed evil.

Mark Lipton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top