"Genetic Modification -- science vs belief"

[JDDavis]

[GreatGazoo]

1. No need to speculate on hypothetical benefits or risk of GMO crops

There is plenty of real world data which shows:

- GMO crops do not have higher yields than hybrids, often they are lower
- the pairing of GMO crops with aggressive pesticide use has led to pesticide resistant amaranth which, again, reduces yields

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/22/superweeds-choke-farms/11231231/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

2. This should go over well...

[JDDavis]

3. "Neil deGrasse Tyson, Are GMOs Safe?"

‘There are no wild cows’: Neil deGrasse Tyson slams ‘fear factor’ over GMOs

Published on Jul 31, 2014
Astrophysicist and Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson blasted critics of genetically modified foods — often referred to as GMOs — in a video recently posted online, saying they are part of a longstanding process of humans altering the planet’s biology to serve our needs, Mother Jones reported...

Read More At:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/30...

http://reason.com/archives/2007/04/06...

http://www.motherjones.com/environmen...

Clip from the Thursday, July 31st 2014 edition of The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio monday - friday 4-6pm Eastern.

[DeSwiss]

16. What the hell does an astrophysicst know about genetics and cell biology?

Not one damned thing and he'd be the first one hollering at David Suzuki (who is a geneticist) trying to explain quasars or a nova.

- I like Neill, but in this case he needs to STFU and stay in his field of expertise.

[JDDavis]

21. David Suzuki is not opposed to research on GMO's

"Because we aren't certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.
That's not to say that research into altering the genes in plants that we use for food should be banned or that GM foods might not someday be part of the solution to our food needs. We live in an age when our technologies allow us to "bypass" the many steps taken by nature over millennia to create food crops to now produce "super crops" that are meant to keep up with an ever-changing human-centred environment"

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2009/09/more-science-needed-on-effects-of-genetically-modifying-food-crops/

By that quote, (similar to what he said in the video), Suzuki just argues for solid science over belief. Unfortunately, the video juxtaposes Suzuki with several anti-GMO activists, who are not scientists, giving the impression Suzuki is against GMO's entirely.

[panfluteman]

4. I Found This Study / Video Flawed...

Because it relied too heavily on ridicule and defamation of anti-GMO activists, and also because it simply glossed over too many crucial points in the arguments / evidence against GMOs. Or didn't mention them at all.

For example, instead of switching to a scene from Austin Powers as soon as the word "evil" was brought up, he could have examined the specific practices of Monsanto that have been branded evil, like corrupting and buying off governments and forcing them to fire and destroy the careers and reputations of scientists whose research leads to anti-GMO conclusions - in other words, using its political and financial might to decide who is viewed as "respectable" (a word that's quite overused and abused in this video) and who is not; putting their own profits ahead of the health and safety of people by creating GMO crops that either demand a high use of their Roundup herbicide, or Glyphosate, or which produce their own pesticides and herbicides within them, which we, the humans who eat them, then have to consume; getting dirt poor farmers in India into using their GMO seeds based on misleading PR, which then obligates them to buy expensive GMO seed every year, as well as Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, leading them further and further into debt, until they commit suicide by drinking the Roundup themselves; aggressively prosecuting neighboring non-GMO farmers whose crops accidentally and inadvertently got contaminated by GMO pollen carried on the wind, turning their crops, against their desire and intent, into GMO crops, for patent violation; etc... If these practices and behaviors of Monsanto are not evil, than the word truly has no meaning at all.

It's not their supposed anti-GMO hysteria that causes anti-GMO activists to call Monsanto evil. It is the very practices and abuses of Monsanto itself that has earned this corporation the dubious distinction of being regarded as the most evil corporation on the planet.

So many valid points and conclusions of the anti-GMO activists are either glibly glossed over or not even mentioned at all in this video that it boggles the mind - like the point that gene splicing, as it now exists, is still a very crude and primitive technology that creates a lot of collateral gene damage beside the transfer of the desired gene or trait, with other genes being inadvertently switched on or off in their expression. There have been numerous animal feeding studies on feeding Bt GMO corn versus natural non-GMO corn, versus non-GMO corn with the Bt toxin simply added or mixed into the feed in the proportion that would be present in the Bt GMO corn that reach the conclusion that it is not the consumption of the Bt toxin itself by the rats that leads to the abnormal lesions in the GI tract, kidneys, abnormal changes in the gonads, etc..., but it is specifically the process of genetic modification that produces these pathologies.

Neither does this guy even touch on epidemiological studies showing the incredible rise in the prevalence of certain diseases and disorders that were quite rare before the introduction of GMOs, but which are now quite common. Infertility is a huge case in point. When I was in acupuncture school in the mid-'80s, before the introduction of GMOs, infertility was quite rare; now, there are acupuncturists and Chinese herbalists who are making a very lucrative practice of just treating infertility alone, and those who have developed the treatment protocols and who are doing professional seminars and continuing education courses about it are raking in the megabucks. Coincidence? I think not. Yet, epidemiological correlations like these, and the need to study them more thoroughly, aren't even mentioned in this video. Another big megatrend is the incredible rise in food allergies, especially gluten intolerance and sensitivity. Gluten free bread and foods are now a huge subsector of the health food industry, and a real growth market, whereas back in the '80s, it was quite rare - and GI tract lesion and inflammations, as well as intestinal flora imbalances are definitely associated with GMOs and the Glyphosate dependent agriculture that has grown up around them.

So read on, Michael Jackson popcorn junkie! But watch out - that may be GMO popcorn you're eating!

[Major Nikon]

14. No shortage of flaws going the other way

With those who propagate them seem to rely heavily.

High rates of suicide by Indian farmers started 5 years before GMO seeds were introduced and did not increase after GMO seeds were introduced.
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/dp/ifpridp00808.pdf#page=55

GMO pollen is not subject to being carried by the wind anymore than any other pollen. Crop cross pollination from neighboring fields has been going on for thousands of years. The Canadian farmer who claimed GMO canola took over his field was found by a judge to have done so deliberately, yet for some reason this bogus story continues to propagate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Monsanto_v._Schmeiser

There have been numerous animal feeding studies on feeding Bt GMO corn versus natural non-GMO corn

True, and the most extensive have shown no adverse reactions, and some of the smaller ones that did show such reactions have been pulled by reputable journals as having questionable methodology, but are still routinely quoted by activists.
http://stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/webfm/plataforma/threegenerationstudyinvestigation.pdf

Neither does this guy even touch on epidemiological studies showing the incredible rise in the prevalence of certain diseases and disorders that were quite rare before the introduction of GMOs, but which are now quite common.

It's also true there has been a marked decline in the population of pirates during the same period that global warming has escalated.

It's not their supposed anti-GMO hysteria that causes anti-GMO activists to call Monsanto evil. It is the very practices and abuses of Monsanto itself that has earned this corporation the dubious distinction of being regarded as the most evil corporation on the planet.

No argument there, but there's also plenty of valid reasons to label Monsanto as evil, so one has to wonder why so many want to make up reasons that are simple to debunk. Misinformation rarely is beneficial, unless one is a Republican legislator. Why not leave the pseudoscience to the Republicans?

[JDDavis]

5. "Anti-GMO activist has change of heart"

Published on Jan 7, 2013
Mark Lynas, an activist and author of "The God Species," has spent years speaking out against the use of genetically modified food. Lynas, who helped spur the anti-GMO movement, has had a change of heart and now claims science is to blame for his pro-GMO stance. He joins us with more on the reasons behind change of position.

[drynberg]

10. Someone needs to throughly check out the finances of Mark Lynas, as I can't help but

Think that he's "seen the light" and was thusly rewarded by Pro-GMO entities. That's the only way this "conversion" makes any sense to me...

[JDDavis]

12. He has denied that publicly.

In this interview video above he was asked that and said that, if offered money by GMO producer folks, he would turn it down and tell them to go away. (He works for Oxford University and would be charged with a violation of research ethics, and probably be fired if he took such money.)

I suggest you might not have listened to what he said in the interview. He changed his mind because, "science" shows no evidence of ill effects from GMO foods and the science also offers tremendous benefit.

Mark Lynas (born 1973) is a British author, journalist and environmental activist who focuses on climate change. He is a contributor to New Statesman, The Ecologist, Granta and Geographical magazines, and The Guardian and The Observer newspapers in the UK; he also worked on the film The Age of Stupid. He was born in Fiji, grew up in Peru and the United Kingdom and holds a degree in history and politics from the University of Edinburgh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas

"In October 2011 leaked documents from Europe's largest biotech industry group, EuropaBio, claimed to have potential interest in Mark Lynas as well as several other individuals for becoming ambassadors for GMOs in Europe. In response to news of these leaked documents Mark Lynas said, "I have never had any contact of any sort with EuropaBio, nor any 'Christopher Flores', who seems to have written this letter. I have not been asked to be an ambassador, nor would I accept such a request if asked."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas



Now from his own public web page:


I was very surprised to be phoned up yesterday by a reporter for The Guardian, who asked for a comment on my decision to become a behind-the-scenes pro-GM ‘ambassador’ for EuropaBio, the European biotechnology business association. She sent through some leaked documents prepared for EuropaBio by a PR agency called Aspect Consulting, based in Brussels. These documents did indeed seem to be genuine – and my name was indeed on the list of “high profile individuals” who were supposedly interested in becoming ‘ambassadors’.


The Guardian duly ran a story on leak, including a comment from myself denying any involvement. I have since spoken to EuropaBio’s Director for Agricultural Biotechnology, Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, to seek some clarification of why my name came to be mentioned in association with this story. For background, here is what the letter from the PR agency said in the crucial sentence:

For your information, to date we have interest from Sir Bob Geldof, Lord Chris Patten, David Byrne, and former French Minister Claude Allegre and potentially the involvement of Mr Kofi Annan and Mark Lynas.

Mr du Marchie Sarvaas was extremely apologetic, and confirmed that my name should not have been on this list – no-one from EuropaBio, the PR agency or anyone else had approached me with the request to become an ‘ambassador’ for EuropaBio. This was simply an error: someone, somewhere had made a mistake, and my name should not have been linked with this industry initiative.

Update: EuropaBio has put a note on its website confirming that I was never approached by them.

- See more at: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/10/why-i-will-never-be-an-ambassador-for-the-corporate-biotech-lobby/#sthash.hc9UOVQk.dpuf

[albino65]

6. It always helps

to have an English accented journalist talking down to you and dismissing your arguments. It's especially helpful to flash text upon the screen and then explain to you what it all means. The fact remains that farmers given a seed which produces a plant that is resistant to a popular herbicide might feel encouraged to use more of the herbicide. Said herbicide seems to mess with our endocrine systems. Messing with our endocrine system can cause issues such as hyper or hypothyroidism. The manufacturer of said herbicide and other henchmen spent lots of money and bought some advertising and politicians (they're not as expensive as you might think) to rescind a bill that was voted on in Vermont to require labeling of foods that are GMO or have GMO products in them. This is not only a matter of science versus belief, but the freedom to make an informed decision without being condescended to. Or maybe shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about those things.

[panfluteman]

7. Good Points, Albino!

The freedom to choose which foods and medicines we consume, and also what to inject into our bodies and what not to, is an important civil right that should not be overlooked or surrendered. In my research, I have found that Glyphosate most screws up our intestinal probiotic bacteria, killing them off, allowing pathogenic bacteria to multiply and thrive. Even though they are not, strictly speaking, part of the human organism, still, so much of our digestion, nutrition, metabolism and immunity depend on them. This technical fact that these beneficial probiotic intestinal bacteria are not, strictly speaking, part of the human organism (even though they contribute so much to its overall health and immunity) provides a misleading technical loophole that enables the bought off scientists who work for Monsanto to claim that Glyphosate is harmless to humans when the truth - the whole truth - is quite a different story.

[albino65]

11. There are also studies

that indicate that overuse of Glyphosate has resulted in genetic resistance to this herbicide my some pernicious weeds. This will lead to another herbicide being used and the downward spiral continues. I just want to be able to make an informed choice, not a choice that has been engineered by Monsanto. It's nice to know that research goes on to replace Glyphosate. According to an article in the New York Times, "...Dow Chemical is developing corn and soybeans resistant to 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange, the defoliant used in the Vietnam War." Better living through chemistry.

[JDDavis]

15. Three points, and a three questions:

Herbicides are related to GMO's only in that they both come about by scientific research, otherwise they are just two 180 degree opposite ways of enhancing a plant's growth.

Just as birth control helps lower the number of abortions, GMO crops actually reduce the need for herbicides.

Agent Orange is made up of several chemical elements and molecules, some of the same are used in such products Dow produces like Saran Wrap.

Now the questions:

Is Glyphosphate a chemical herbicide or something you consider part of GMO science?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Do you think we should move away from over-use of herbicides with new technological advances in GMO or not?

Last question: What are the conclusions and recommendations to the "studies" you mention and where can I read them?

[JDDavis]

20. GMO Myth: Farmers “drown” crops in “dangerous” glyphosate. Fact: They use eye droppers

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/22/gmo-myth-farmers-drown-crops-in-dangerous-glyphosate-fact-they-use-eye-droppers/

As a farmer, I have to laugh sometimes; it’s all I can do when I run across this sort of misinformation supposedly telling me about how I run my farm. There are people out there who truly believe that we farmers douse, drown, drench or saturate our crops in chemicals, glyphosate to be more specific. Anti-GMO campaigners, organic activists and irresponsible news reports use those phrases all the time (see here, here, here, here). In graphic form it often looks something like this meme from GMOFreeUSA pictured above.

...

Really?Let’s look a little closer at our goals. Believe it or not, most farmers try to minimize total herbicide use. Yeah, that’s right. We don’t have a special love for applying herbicides. They can be expensive, it takes resources of time and fuel to apply them, there are crop rotation issues for some herbicides and they are not sustainable, which is one of my big concerns and a concern farmers that I know

.

Dave Walton, a contributing columnist to the GLP, is a full-time farmer in Cedar County, Iowa growing GM and non-GM corn, soybeans, alfalfa and pasture on 500 acres of the world’s most productive soil. Follow him on twitter at: @waltonagseed.

[JDDavis]

9. "might feel encouraged to use more of the herbicide" ???

MIGHT FEEL ENCOURAGED? by whom? That would be a foolish and expensive way to raise a crop.

Do you have any data suggesting that farmers anywhere "might feel encouraged to use more of the herbicide"?

"herbicide seems to mess with our endocrine systems"

"SEEMS TO"?

Can you cite a study?

"freedom to make an informed decision"

Yes, that was what the videos I posted above ALL recommended.

[albino65]

13. Here you go

These are studies that are available through that kooky group the National Institute of Health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684

[JDDavis]

19. So you agree with the NIH that reduction of herbicides is a good idea!

Fine.

Now, what does that have to do with GMO foods?

Would not the use of GMO crops be the best way to reduce noxious herbicide use and ensure healthier crops?

I think that's what the scientists are saying.

[Major Nikon]

23. The NIH doesn't endorse such studies, it just publishes them

Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

Glyphosate and AMPA inhibit cancer cell growth through inhibiting intracellular glycine synthesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23983455

One study says glyphosate causes cancer, the other says it prevents it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684

Same guy published the infamous (and retracted) GMO rat study. Lots of foods also contain "toxic endocrine disruptors" like soybeans, cranberries, rice, coffee and lots of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogens

[drynberg]

8. SO, GMOs HAVE BEEN DEFEATED IN THE 3 STATES WHERE PEOPLE VOTED, BUT WHY?

The large corporations making tons of $$$ spent way way more than those wanting a label GMO law. Why did they spend so much? Why do about 90% of the voters initially want GMO labeling? These are questions not addressed by pro-GMOs. Follow the money.

[Major Nikon]

26. Good question

Those who think organic food comes from farmer O'dell's back 40 are sadly mistaken. Large corporate interests have bought out the organic industry. There's also a lot of money pouring into promote GMO labeling.

It also depends on how you ask the question. If you asked people if they want to know if their food is fertilized with cow shit, I suspect most would say yes. When asked, “What information would you like to see on food labels that is not already there?” Only 7% said they wanted GMO labeling. The majority said they had little knowledge of GMO, and when people don't understand something, they tend to vote no.
http://humeco.rutgers.edu/documents_PDF/news/GMlabelingperceptions.pdf

[DeSwiss]

17. Well I'll be short since this is the first and the last time we'll ever speak.

GMO's are fucking poison and the people who eat them will get sick and die sooner than those who don't.

PERIOD.

I don't give a damn what anyone else believes -- you eat what the hell you want, okay? But this is my body and I get to decide what goes in it.

And no one else.

People here at DU almost daily read about the lying, the defects, the corruption, the collusion, the bribery and the laboratory coverups by the FDA, the USDA and damned near everywhere else in the federal government involved in some kind of oversight, And yet some how GMO oversight by these same derelict agencies aren't affected!?!?! Oh, sure that's logical. And scientific!!!

- What the hell!?!?!

MONSANTO GMO's NEVER MET MINIMUM SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROTOCOL STANDARDS

"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations. Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years.

Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

[center]America's premier POISON MAKERS.




[/center]

[font size=3]Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA[/font]

Abstract

Our previous studies have demonstrated that stable microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian serum and plasma are actively secreted from tissues and cells and can serve as a novel class of biomarkers for diseases, and act as signaling molecules in intercellular communication. Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals.

CELL RESEARCH: Full Study

Yes, this is all true. You ARE what you eat. There's also another study which discovered similar abnormalities in the way GMO rice interfered with the process of breaking-down LDL cholesterol in the liver. Could this be the cause of the steady increase since the nineteen nineties of heart disease, obesity and Type II diabetes since GMO's were introduced around the same time?

Once the link is confirmed, MONSANTO, et al will all be sued out of existence once the court cases get under way. You might hide in the rotten 'ol USA with it's No Harm No Foul Monsanto Act, but you can't hide everywhere......

[JDDavis]

18. Argumentum Ad Monsantum: Bill Maher and The Lure of a Liberal Logical Fallacy

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/2013/10/16/argumentum-ad-monsantum-bill-maher-and-the-lure-of-a-liberal-logical-fallacy/

Maher, who I think gets a lot of science right, gets the science of GM food so wrong because he is unable or unwilling to disentangle the politics from the science. Many liberals seem to have the same problem.

The first component to the liberal opposition to genetically modified food appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of how it works. The genetic modification of food is a much more exact science than many opponents realize. As this fantastic explainer outlines, genetic modification is typically about inserting a single gene—whose effects we test for toxicity and allergenic properties—into a crop. It is not a haphazard Frankenstein process of sowing and suturing animal and plant parts together. In fact, a Frankenstein-style process is exactly what was done before genetic modification.

In the early days of agriculture, farmers crossbred plants to take advantage of the genetic diversity thrown up by evolutionary processes. Whatever beneficial properties emerged were saved in the seeds and transplanted into the next generation. This is a Mary Shelly-style process, with more recent farmers exposing their plants to radiation in the hopes of increasing the genetic variations at their disposal. That’s a fact that is absent from many a Monsanto discussion. If anything exemplifies the messy, unknown nature of altering crops, it’s what farming looked like before genetic modification.

Even when we are taking genes from animals and inserting them into plants or vice-versa, the results are still safe, reduce pesticide use, and dramatically increase crop yields. In fact, this year, a review of over 1,700 papers concerning the safety of GM food in the journal Critical Reviews in Biotechnology concluded, “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops.”

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/02/genetic-literacy-project-special-report-gmo-beyond-the-science/

Genetic Literacy Project Where Science Trumps Ideology

These and other surveys suggest that most people have little understanding of the technology or its potential impact, good or bad. Most people’s views range from indifference to a hazy uneasiness. To many GMOs are like a black box, filled to the brim with the unknown. Will it be filled with fears or science?

Yet crop biotechnology—GMOs if you will—is far from an inscrutable subject. The technology is straightforward and well studied. The environmental inputs and impacts have been extensively evaluated. We have close to two decades of data about the economic impact of GM crops—what’s been gained and what’s being lost to antiquated regulations. And we are learning the consequences of anti-technology fever—the ongoing campaigns by activists to demonize GMOs.

Beginning Tuesday, December 3, the Genetic Literacy Project launches a 6-part series: GMO: Beyond the Science. Our goal is to try to fill the vacuum created by misinformation and doubt. Each Tuesday and Thursday over the next two weeks, we will present another dimension of the GMO debate. We hope to stimulate a public discussion on genetic modification based on science, not fear.

[Major Nikon]

28. You also claimed the whole mental health profession was fraudulent

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014323143#post5

Kind of ironic.

The government also says there's no such thing as contrails. Should we disbelieve that as well?

[JDDavis]

22. "Unbelievably bad science in the movie Seeds of Death"

Published on Aug 30, 2014
Myles reviews part of Gary Null's 2012 anti-GMO documentary Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

Seeds Of Death - Full Movie

...

Unbelievably bad science in the movie “Seeds of Death”
http://mylespower.co.uk/2013/11/17/un...

Dr Rima Laibow's website
http://www.drrima.net

So in conclusion, the documentary has shown the calibre of the people behind the alarmist anti-GMO movement. By getting such basic science incorrect, it is an insult to people who have legitimate concerns about the technology and some of the companies involved. It is also a joke that the maker calls Rima Laibow a “leading” physician when she clearly knows nothing about the subject she is talking about. Although this article only focussed on a 50 second clip of the documentary, I can assure you that the rest of it is full of the same level of knowledge (or lack of) and fear mongering. It even goes as far as to say that the planet is on the cusp of the 6th mass extinction because of GM technology. If you have a reasonably strong tolerance for bullshit I would actually recommend watching this film, if only for the awesome rap at the end by a white man in his 40s who can’t remember his own lyrics.

[Major Nikon]

27. ...

[cheapdate]

24. The question of whether or not GMOs are DIRECTLY hazardous

to human health, i.e. are they toxic or disease causing, is not the only, or even the most serious, question to ask regarding their widespread use.

From a policy perspective, we might ask the question: is developing crops that can survive heavy applications of deadly herbicides the best agricultural policy? What are the alternatives?

There are plenty of other questions and concerns. The potential effect on genetic diversity of food crops. Ethical and legal questions over the patenting life forms. Unintended consequences for beneficial insects and other organisms.

In today's world, new technology has the ability to completely colonize the living world in a very short time frame. Pausing to have a serious public discussion about the wisdom of new technology is a sane and rational thing to do.

[JDDavis]

25. "developing crops that can survive heavy applications of deadly herbicides"

Please see post #20 in this thread, the one that starts with "GMO Myth: Farmers “drown” crops in “dangerous” glyphosate. Fact: They useeye droppers", written by a GMO and non GMO farmer in Iowa. His paper explains how they have been able to reduce herbicide use with GMO crops.

"The potential effect on genetic diversity of food crops": Any GMO crop is, by definition, an expansion of diversity of food crops.

"Unintended consequences" happen often in hybridization. They are controlled only in the farm field, or in the laboratory first. By contrast GMO processes are, by the nature of their procedure, and by strict use controls with the beta, (experimental variant), a more effective way to limit "unintended consequences", first in a laboratory, with a cross-matrix of studies of possible adverse consequences before they are ever introduced to the farm field.

As to the nature of ""patenting life forms", those are legal questions, and do have some ethical implications, who benefits from research, etc. But as with any research and production, systems of patents are intended to protect inventors and encourage and reward technological advancement, not to stifle it nor to pollute advancement in a morass of non-regulation and cut-throat free markets.

Of course, there is never a guarantee in real life, so I agree with you "... a serious public discussion about the wisdom of new technology is a sane and rational thing to do".

However, it's a little too late to "pause" unfortunately, since the cat is already out of the bag in a number of food and animal crops around the world. So what next? The GMO "cat" cannot go "back in the bag", really, can it?

[cheapdate]

29. The Dupont-Pioneer white paper "Glyphosphate Use for Optimum Field Peformance"

Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)

recommends a glyphosphate rate of between 0.75 and 1.50 lbs per acre, which by volume is around 40-75 gallons for a 200 acre field (Roundup PRO, 41% glyphosphate.)

Your farmer using the eye-droppers must be planting some very small fields.

(on edit : and anyway, the fact that 0.75 to 1.50 lbs per acre is enough to kill every growing thing apart from plants specifically engineered for herbicide resistance, is NOT a testament to how "safe" this stuff is, to the contrary, it's a testament it's extraordinary toxicity and lethality.)

If you believe that the consequences of these genetic modification programs leads to "...an expansion of genetic diversity" then you're either deliberately narrowing your focus and ignoring the larger picture, or you're truly unaware of the actual practices of modern agri-business using GMOs and how this depletes genetic diversity and reduces the variety of food crops existing in the world, narrowing it down to a small number of technology dependent varieties.

I'm sure you are pleased to cavalierly dismiss the "legal questions" and not bother with "some ethical implications", but in the real world the large, powerful, agri-business companies who "own" these lifeforms are playing "hardball" with small farmers all around the world, seizing their crops and equipment, destroying their livelihoods, and taking away their ability to provide food for their families.

Likewise, you seem pleased to cavalierly dismiss "unintended consequences" with a false comparison between the potential consequences of regular hybridization, and those of modern genetic engineering techniques, including recombinant DNA techniques that use biological vectors like plasmids and viruses to carry foreign genes into cells, as well as other techniques like microinjection to introduce genetic material from donor chromatin directly into the nucleus of the recipient cell where it is incorporated among the host genes.

On an unrelated note, I was a process engineer working for ICI Americas at an organophosphate plant in Mt, Pleasant, Tennessee. I worked on the BPD (benzene phosphorus dichloride) unit. The products were used as intermediates in organophosphate herbicides. Long story short, that's some truly wicked shit.

[JDDavis]

30. But you miss the entire point

The aim of GMO corn and other plants is to REDUCE what used to be 4-10 times as much herbicide per plant, when using common naturally "engineered", (by humans), hybrid varieties of the same plant.

In the 1960's, the latest technologies used to involve radiation of seeds, as well as "testing" new varieties of hybrids on spreads of 1000-5000 acres, some utterly failed to produce an ear of corn; the seeds irratiated the soil for 4-10 years.

And one last point. The purpose of GMO varieties of plants is to REDUCE the use of any man-made chemical herbicide. Sorry you confuse that with actual GMO research and factfinding, the science we are talking about here.

It's sort of like people telling me that herbicides and chemicals are bad, like people would tell me that experimentation in feul cell technology is bad, because gasoline can cause explosions. They are exactly opposite ends of the spectrum of research and prudent use of flammables versus other power options.

What exactly are you trying to say here? Herbicides are bad and GMO's require them? Take a look at the history of the use of herbicides and how GMO's entire purpose in research is to REDUCE their use.

[cheapdate]

33. Oh, I miss the point?

And your point is that compared to irradiation and possibly radioactive seeds, Roundup is smart agricultural policy and the best path forward?

Or that since hydrogen fuel cells are potentially explosive, therefore the toxicity of chemical herbicides is not a matter of concern?

Or that organophosphate herbicides may or may not be "bad"?

Listen, I've spoken my piece on this subject more than once, here and in other threads. If you believe that using advanced genetic technologies to design crops for resistance to chemical herbicides is good agricultural policy, and supportive of the long-term health and viability of human society and the living environment, fine.

If you believe that the "entire purpose" of Monsanto's research was to reduce the use of herbicides and not to grow the market for, surprise, their proprietary herbicide, Roundup, fine.

If your idea of best agricultural policy is to encourage chemical and energy intensive, large-scale, agriculture, fine.

If you're not worried about preserving genetic diversity, or preserving original genetic stocks, but would rather see a small number of major agri-business corporations have virtually complete control over the entire farming enterprise, fine.

How well or poorly does chemical intensive, large scale, agriculture preserve healthy living soils? It doesn't. Soils used in chemical intensive agriculture are no longer living soils. They remain productive only as long as significant inputs of chemical are continued.

[JDDavis]

34. Roundup is a horrible product, used 4-10 times less in GMO's than

with non-GMO plants.


"If you're not worried about preserving genetic diversity, or preserving original genetic stocks, but would rather see a small number of major agri-business corporations have virtually complete control over the entire farming enterprise, fine. "

GMO's do exactly the opposite of what your strawman infers. The process of developing any reputable GMO variety of any plant is to PRESERVE the original, and experiment with the variant. Two varieties are the result of serious scientific research, the original is preserved and a new, more highly adapted variant may result, or may fail to result, in which case it is discarded. This happens about 200-300 times a year, one or two new highly more adaptable variants become available, for dessert areas, for areas where an herbacious plant is taking over the soil, whatever. GMO's are like targeted drugs, they only work on the patient they are intended to work on.

Of course they can be misused , of course we don't want teenagers using a drug to relieve pain of Cancer patients, but we target the GMO to the specific problem, and, of course, there is a chance a teenager, foolishly, could take the elder Cancer patient's pain killer drug and die as a result. So we should deny the Cancer patient their drug because a stupid teenager could mis-use it?

I still don't see your point in talking about "chemical intensive, large scale, agriculture". We have had that going on the the USA and Canada, (and Mexico and parts of Europe and Asia, Australia, etc, everywhere except Antarctica), since about 1950. Our purpose in GMO research is to REDUCE "chemical intensive, large scale, agriculture".

[JDDavis]

32. So what has been your study of animal and plant DNA?

There are actually Ph.D. programs at several prominent universities across the world which enable people of well-above average intelligence to study these issues today, about 18 years since the human genome was sequenced.

Injecting genes from viruses into human beings? What do you think vaccines do?

Aside from the human genome, about 2000 animal genomes, a few dozen of our primate ancestor and distant cousins' genomes, and about 3000 plant genomes have been sequenced and are being studied, chromosome by chromosome, gene by gene.

You think this is just some sort of wild chemical experiment? You think we are trying to figure out how we cannot bond A to C, G to T?

I invite you to take a basic graduate level course in recombinant dna technologies, a course you can find for free on-line from such places as MIT, Harvard, Oxford, or Stanford. Come back to me and tell me we should not be researching here, should not go down this route, should not be looking at the bigger, more precise picture than we had about 10-25 years ago.

This is EXACTLY "rocket science" and "brain surgery" on the animal and plant kingdoms we have in the world today.


Is there a chance of error? Sure! Is there a problem with ethics and patent litigation? Sure! That's what the human beings are around on the planet to figure out and fix. I'm not a "process engineer" nor a lawyer, nor a lawmaker, but if people thought sending Columbus' ship over the Atlantic ocean, to the "edge of the Earth" was then the end of mankind in 1488, where would we be today?

[cheapdate]

35. WTF?

You're going to question my education and knowledge level? You're going to imply I lack adequate knowledge and intelligence to have an informed opinion?

That's out of bounds, my friend, and a shitty gambit.

I assure you that my knowledge of life sciences and technology is adequate for the task.

(on edit : for your information, I'm a fucking chemical engineer with a background in cell biology. You, on the other hand, appear to be one who has read softball, bullet-points from a corporate sponsored source.)

[JDDavis]

36. I'm simply saying you have a large ego as a "process engineer"

and, sadly, you have not followed much science of DNA research in the last 20 years, as is evident from your posts.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Either you are in favor of scientific research, (the purpose of this tread, please listen again to the original post video I put here), or you are against it.

Take you pick.

[cheapdate]

38. And I'm saying that falling back to "Where did you earn your PhD"

signals desperation, insecurity, and a shallow grasp of the subject.

And I'm supposed to believe by your backhanded claim that you've "followed much science of DNA research in the last 20 years", to a greater extent than I have? I doubt it.

Genetic research is easily the single largest area of research in the life sciences today, and has been for some years. I support it 100%.

[JDDavis]

39. "I support it 100%"

How?

Your posts indicate quite the opposite.

What research are you supporting?

GMO research? NO?

[cheapdate]

40. Regardless of what questions were raised in the OP,

its obvious from my first post onward, that the questions I've discussed have to do with the introduction, application, and practical use of GMO technology. At no point anywhere have I stated any objection to research, either genetic research, or research generally.

You have created that illusion through carelessness and false assumptions.

Discussion threads routinely diverge from the OP. A careful and attentive person can follow a discussion as it evolves and diverges.

[JDDavis]

37. To quote your wisdom again,

"You, on the other hand, appear to be one who has read softball, bullet-points from a corporate sponsored source."

Ah, not exactly, but you will never know.

And science has nothing to do, not a damn thing to do with "MONSANTO" and "corporate-sponsored".....

Quite simply, my poor adversary, you have not studied enough science are afraid to debate, become personally insulted when I question your actual knowledge of DNA plant and animal genomes, the nature of recombinant DNA, the matrix of engineering, medicine, and biochemistry here.

In essence, I see you as the guy that would have advised Queen Isabella NOT to fund Columbus' setting sail off the edge of the Earth.

To bring my point home more on your level of argument: Monsanto and Dow Chemical are ugly, horrible American corporations: however, GMO research must continue and improve the diet of humans and animals, (and other plants), on this planet.

My simple point: simple 20-30 year efforts at "natural", (man-induced, often failed), hybridization will not feed the world we live in, nor will it enable us to adapt quickly to global climate crises brought-on by man-made global climate change.

Please look at the videos once again, pleas do some actual research and extend your breadth of understanding. You seem like an intelligent fellow, but just blinded by lots of propaganda from non-scientists who love science research when it supports their causes, but ignore the depth to which science has to go to actually change the planet for the better.

No, I never got a dime from Dow or Monsanto, and I hate those monsters, but their research is mostly solid all the time, or they reject it, don't fund it. This is not a problem of big corporations running research, it is a problem of people being afraid to look at the research and continue to research.

[cheapdate]

41. Let's be clear,

You parade around, half-cocked, making outrageously uninformed claims, and, now, to ice the cake, you cap it off with the incredibly irritating entreaty (also very popular with libertarian-types) to "do your research".

Case in point: The "farmer with the eye-dropper". The global market for glyphosphate is 1.35 million metric tons. The total acreage of corn and soybeans in the United States is roughly 150 million acres. Roughly 90% of that crop consists of herbicide resistant GMO seed. Treating that acreage at the modest application rate of 1.15 lbs per acre requires 39 million gallons of glyphosphate (41% solution).

No one is using a fucking "eye dropper" on a 1,000 acre soybean field in Mississippi. That's a ridiculous statement and the fact that you've said it, twice in this thread, pretty well shows that you don't quantitatively understand what the fuck you're talking about, or how to distinguish solid arguments from bullshit.

Case in point: "simple 20-30 year efforts at "natural", (man-induced, often failed), hybridization will not feed the world we live in, nor will it enable us to adapt quickly to global climate crises brought-on by man-made global climate change." Who told you this? What farming practices did you consider? What crop varieties did you consider? How did you quantify the results? How does small scale, intensive farming compare with large-scale extensive farming in terms of production? inputs? energy usage? long term sustainability?

Ten-to-one says you haven't seriously consulted actual published information on crop yeilds, much less considered any published comparative studies of different agricultural practices. (Hint - check with the agricultural college in your state.)


But you're gonna strut around and "school" me?

Please.

[HuckleB]

43. You were schooled.

The science is not on your side.

http://www.watchusgrow.org/illinois-farm-families-blog/is-conventional-food-drenched-in-chemicals

[cheapdate]

44. Not sure what your point is.

My main point was pretty specific:

<<No one is using a fucking "eye dropper" on a 1,000 acre soybean field in Mississippi. That's a ridiculous statement and the fact that you've said it, twice in this thread, pretty well shows that you don't quantitatively understand what the fuck you're talking about, or how to distinguish solid arguments from bullshit.>>

In case you didn't catch it, I'm rebutting the the specific claim, made twice, that the amount of Roundup used for fields of any significant size, is measured in "eye-droppers". That's absurd, and your WatchUsGrow.org link confirms it. Roundup is measured in gallons, not "eyedroppers". It would be ridiculous to measure 7-1/2 gallons of Roundup with an eye-dropper. I can only conclude that the purpose of repeating the "eye-dropper" claim is intentional and is deliberately meant to distort and mislead.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is. If your point is to defend the claim that the amount of Roundup used by farmers is measured in "eyedroppers", rather than in gallons, then you're as guilty as he is of distorting the truth.

And furthermore, the statement from WatchUsGrow.org: "That's it. A fifth of a gallon over an entire football field," doesn't tell a person anything about the toxicity or effects. A fifth of a gallon of an endocrine disruptor spread across a football field, and then multiplied by many football fields, is not necessarily a trivial problem.

[HuckleB]

42. K & R.

[libodem]

45. Praises be for green store bought tomatoes!

They may ship well but the side effect is shitty taste. It may be personally particular to my taste buds they taste like cellulose. Don't they gas them with something to turn them red? Eff that.