GMOs Don't Hurt Anyone, But Opposing Them Does

Steelplate said:
I have no issues with GMO's. I do have an issue with not having an option. The Vitamin A thing is a good modification.

But in regards to Monsanto...how many modifications are for yield that sacrifice nutrition? A big corporation like that can hire a team of well paid scientists to cook the books any way they want. Then use lobbyists and lawyers to squash any opposing findings.
Click to expand...
That's just not possible in the world of science. The courts may adjudicate for one side or the other based on bias of one sort or the other but the science continues, is reported, peer reviewed, independently verified and disseminated.

I deal with fringe fanatics on environmental issues who are as anti-fact and anti-science as a lot of anti-GMO supporters seem to be. Many who oppose GMO do so from emotional and interest driven politics than they do based on risk assessment analysis. In fact, what I have read on the topic of GMO from peer reviewed literature on the risk vs reward of this technology unequivocally demonstrated the validity of this technology.

In fast I find that most of the anti-GMO rational is based on logical fallacies of the same sort as those who oppose stem cell research. It's a fear and emotional based response.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Extremely well written article on 'golden rice', there is pro vitamin A in unpolished rice but that apparently is not a solution. There is a stigma attached to brown rice in third world as it is associated with the poor, also much of the white rice is exported. There is also considerably more in the roots and leaves which could easily be kept, dried and eaten.




Read more: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rice.php
Click to expand...
True too. More than one way to skin a cat. My fear on GMO based foods is really not that the technology is harmful but that it's just not the best solution. GMO technology is essentially predicated on a system of monoculture agriculture. That, to me, is the flaw in the technology. The problem with monocultures is that they are land, chemical and capital intensive with low margins that depend on an economy of scale to be economically viable. That's puts large numbers of farmers on the margins of profitability. A thought provoking concern when you consider it's our food supply were talking about. The other issue with monocultures is that when they fail, they fail catastrophically with subsequent human catastrophes resulting. The famed Irish potato famine is a perfect example of over reliance on monocultures and its human consequences. When one steps away from a monoculture based form of agriculture than GMO becomes a less valid technology because the cost/benefit value just isn't there.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's just not possible in the world of science. The courts may adjudicate for one side or the other based on bias of one sort or the other but the science continues, is reported, peer reviewed, independently verified and disseminated.

I deal with fringe fanatics on environmental issues who are as anti-fact and anti-science as a lot of anti-GMO supporters seem to be. Many who oppose GMO do so from emotional and interest driven politics than they do based on risk assessment analysis. In fact, what I have read on the topic of GMO from peer reviewed literature on the risk vs reward of this technology unequivocally demonstrated the validity of this technology.

In fast I find that most of the anti-GMO rational is based on logical fallacies of the same sort as those who oppose stem cell research. It's a fear and emotional based response.
Click to expand...

A lot of people get fearful and emotional over drones too. You know how the proles are Mott. They just don't know what's good for them.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
True too. More than one way to skin a cat. My fear on GMO based foods is really not that the technology is harmful but that it's just not the best solution. GMO technology is essentially predicated on a system of monoculture agriculture. That, to me, is the flaw in the technology. The problem with monocultures is that they are land, chemical and capital intensive with low margins that depend on an economy of scale to be economically viable. That's puts large numbers of farmers on the margins of profitability. A thought provoking concern when you consider it's our food supply were talking about. The other issue with monocultures is that when they fail, they fail catastrophically with subsequent human catastrophes resulting. The famed Irish potato famine is a perfect example of over reliance on monocultures and its human consequences. When one steps away from a monoculture based form of agriculture than GMO becomes a less valid technology because the cost/benefit value just isn't there.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with that, we are also in the very early days of GM technology and I consider it as a softening up exercise for the 3rd and 4th gen horrors further down the line.
 
blackascoal said:
This is why ..

Institute for Responsible Technology: 65 Health Risks of GM Foods
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes

GMOs and Genetically Modified Foods - Risks and Dangers of GMOs
http://www.wanttoknow.info/gmoinyourfood

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food
http://www.foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/

10 IRREFUTABLE evidence that GMO can harm you
http://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=a2415619a6deb0cd&q=gmos+dangerous

Much of the world is not convinced that GMO's are as harmless as you believe they are.

They are not trusted .. as vaccines are often not trusted.

Just because science did it, doesn't mean they are safe.
Click to expand...
Be fair. None of the links you provided present peer reviewed science. They are all opinions of politically based interest groups. There's a solid body of peer reviewed data that demonstrates that this technology is valid from a risk assessment standpoint and can help produce the large yields needed to feed billions of people using current agricultural methods.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html

You know the old joke.....how many potatoes does it take to kill an Irishman?

None!!

Point being is that GMO food products have been consumed world wide for over 20 years now with little widespread scientific evidence indicating they are unsafe.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Can't disagree with that, we are also in the very early days of GM technology and I consider it as a softening up exercise for the 3rd and 4th gen horrors further down the line.
Click to expand...
I've seen little, if any, indications of these genetically modified horrors occurring.

It's certainly a technology that should be highly regulated as we're dealing with the stuff of life and human safety but it appears that challenge is being successfully met and has been for 20 years. If the horrors happen it will probably have far more to do with an over reliance on monocultures than specifically GMO technology.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I've seen little, if any, indications of these genetically modified horrors occurring.

It's certainly a technology that should be highly regulated as we're dealing with the stuff of life and human safety but it appears that challenge is being successfully met and has been for 20 years. If the horrors happen it will probably have far more to do with an over reliance on monocultures than specifically GMO technology.
Click to expand...

Just wait until they start clamouring to be able to apply GM technology to animals, that's where I see it going.
 
How do you avoid the Gene creep?

how do you stop these crops for seeping into the genes of other crops?


evolution


it happens.

Unintended consequences
 
If the science is really there like you claim then its encumbant on the field to convince the population.


There is very good reason for the population NOT to trust any corporation.
 
bug resistant genetically engineered crops end up gene creeping into the native plants.

Now you have a die off of insects.

then the things that pray on insects.

then the things that prey on the things that prey on insects.

then very bad things start happening.


I don't trust these crops or their makers.
 
We start letting them use them and they turn out safe.

then they come up with other things and the trust level rises.

Then they do as they always and forever do.

They place profit over people and unleash something thata makes a huge mess because we started trusting them.


They deserve to have everything they do like this be fought in every way possible until they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is safe.


There are other ways to make sure these people get the nutrition they need
 
evince said:
How do you avoid the Gene creep?

how do you stop these crops for seeping into the genes of other crops?


evolution


it happens.

Unintended consequences
Click to expand...
You don't. What evidence do you have after 20 some years that this has been a problem? Doesn't hybridization gain the same results in agriculture seeds? The answer is yes. The difference between commercial hybrid seed (which have been around for nearly 100 years) and GMO seeds is that one is genetically manipulated invitro and the other invivo. Why do people who oppose the use of GMO seeds not oppose the use of commercial hybrid seeds which create the same kinds of genetic modifications?

Can you answer that question?
 
If indeed this science is safe you will have the greater scientific world heralding it.


when that happens you will have everyone joining the idea.

I wait until then
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Isn't that more of an ethical issue than a safety one?
Click to expand...

No, and it is already being applied to animal; http://news.yahoo.com/young-frankenfish-meet-terrifying-offspring-gmo-salmon-wild-194512676.html










It doesn’t happen often in nature, but now and then, a wild Atlantic salmon (yes, there are still a few left) mates with a brown trout and has hybrid offspring.
This ability to reproduce between species had some Canadian scientists curious: If a genetically modified Atlantic salmon were to come in contact with a brown trout, would it too be able to have little transgenes babies? The answer is yes, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. And it turns out that those offspring carry the genetically inserted trait that allows them to grow faster than their Mother-Nature-made cousins. Much faster. In fact, the hybrid offspring outgrew their genetically tweaked parents as well.
“When the fish were placed in a mocked-up stream inside the laboratory, the researchers found that the hybrids were out-competing both the genetically modified salmon and wild salmon, significantly stunting their growth,” writes Rebecca Morelle, science reporter for BBC News.
“They’re like the super offspring,” George Leonard, director of strategic initiatives, Ocean Conservancy, tells TakePart.
The fact that these fast-growing fry even exist and can thrive may contradict the FDA’s own environmental assessment report, which says genetically engineered salmon’s ability to survive and reproduce in the wild is extremely remote, calling into question the agency’s finding of no significant impact.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You don't. What evidence do you have after 20 some years that this has been a problem? Doesn't hybridization gain the same results in agriculture seeds? The answer is yes. The difference between commercial hybrid seed (which have been around for nearly 100 years) and GMO seeds is that one is genetically manipulated invitro and the other invivo. Why do people who oppose the use of GMO seeds not oppose the use of commercial hybrid seeds which create the same kinds of genetic modifications?

Can you answer that question?
Click to expand...

The answer is no, because nature doesn't insert genes from different species. You and the Proff are both absolutely incorrect about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top