Anti-GMO Activist Recants 758
Freddybear writes "Former anti-GMO activist Mark Lynas, who opposed genetically modified food in the 1990s, said recently, at the Oxford Farming Conference: 'I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment. As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely. So I guess you'll be wondering — what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.' To vilify GMOs is to be as anti-science as climate-change deniers, he says. To feed a growing world population (with an exploding middle class demanding more and better-quality food), we must take advantage of all the technology available to us, including GMOs. To insist on 'natural' agriculture and livestock is to doom people to starvation, and there’s no logical reason to prefer the old ways, either. Moreover, the reason why big companies dominate the industry is that anti-GMO activists and policymakers have made it too difficult for small startups to enter the field."
This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kepler figured out he had it all wrong after a career spent trying to prove bad theories (Platonic model of the universe? Really?) ... and arguably launched the age of the scientific enlightenment.
I'm anxious read Mr. Lynas' coming works.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kepler figured out he had it all wrong after a career spent trying to prove bad theories (Platonic model of the universe? Really?) ... and arguably launched the age of the scientific enlightenment.
I'm anxious read Mr. Lynas' coming works.
I don't have mod points today, so I'm just going to add to your sentiment. I have a great amount of respect for anyone that can look at the evidence they were wrong about a particular belief, and admit to their mistake. And it only gets harder to do so the longer that belief has been held, and the greater the audience you're admitting that mistake to. This guy is to be commended for a true commitment to the truth, not to ideology.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Interesting)
If GMOs are really so safe, why the tremendous resistance to putting a simple label on the food?
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're referring to the california proposition from last election, I don't think many people objected to the labeling so much as the fact that the law was written by a trial lawyer to be intentionally confusing and open to abuse. It basically paves the way for ADA style shakedown lawsuits against mom and pop food producers
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now that's a different perspective that I didn't hear about in the news or other sources I've reviewed. I would like to see the law written in a way that makes it easy to determine what is labeled and where liability can be traced. Maybe there is a better way to do this.
Thanks for the perspective on prop 37.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
Food in general isn't patented. Food in general, doesn't have genes shot through the seeds with silver particles, nor does it use viruses as a vector to intentionally insert "beneficial" genes into the host genome. So in the context of this debate, yes, the omission of a label on the food is deceit.
With regard to nuclear magnetic resonance machines, I understand what you're getting at. Magnetic Resonance Imaging is not something most people would understand. However, they are relying upon a doctor to provide them with the information required to make an informed decision about undergoing a scan for MRI.
The difference is this: at the doctors office, if I ask about it, he'll tell me what it is. At the grocery store, they have no idea what I'm talking about with respect to GMOs. If they do know, even management isn't very friendly to a discussion on the topic. I've sent emails to managers at markets and get no response on the subject. I've asked them at the market and they're ignorant on the subject, so they can't offer an opinion.
To me, it's still deceit without a label and I have a right to know so that I choose a different product if I want. But that's not fair to you because "it's great technology that deserves a chance". As far as I can tell, you don't think I can make an informed decision about it, so you want to protect me from that decision through deceit. How thoughtful.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
Newsflash: Millions of people are going to starve to death with or without GMO crops. It's not like Monsanto or ADM is just going to magnanimously ship all this extra food to Africa out of the goodness of their hearts. Producing more food does absolutely nothing to ensure that the surplus actually gets to the people who need it. One study claims that 40% of food in the US goes to waste (Link [cnn.com]). A good chunk of this hypothetical extra GM food will probably just add to that.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have a right to demand that millions of people starve to death so that you can indulge your superstitions.
How did this nonsense get moderated up?
The EU has very strict laws regulating GM food that is imported into or grown in the EU.
They passed the first law in 1997 and over the years, have only been making them stricter, much to the USA's annoyance.
The current law mandates labeling of GM products and has an opt-out provision for any member State that does not want to allow GM imports.
Here's an older list of Countries and municipalities that have banned GMOs: http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/list.html [gmo-free-regions.org]
Yes, individual states and towns can ban GMOs, even if the Country does not.
With the European example thriving for the last 15 years, I don't see how allowing us Americans a similar legislative and regulatory framework will lead to millions of deaths from starvation.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because "safe" and "perceived to be safe after this guy spent two decades badmouthing it" are very different things. Consumers will avoid GMO-labeled foods regardless.
That, and the fact that there are some costs involved keeping the GMO and non-GMO streams completely separate. They've already had some notable failures in that regard.
Personally, regardless of the benefits of GMOs, and their probable safety, I don't trust Monsanto as far as I can throw them. I don't have any faith that they've done their tests properly, and I believe they're completely willing to take a $5B fine if they can take in $40B in profits before they get called on it.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't have a strong opinion as to whether GMO foods are dangerous or not. In fact, I think the question is wrong - it seems most likely that some modifications could be harmful while others could be harmless. I'm fairly certain that BT sprayed on an apple tree in the spring is not harmful to humans, but I'm not certain that BT-toxin expressed by the apple and present in the eaten food is harmless to humans. For some modifications it might be that both 'conventional' pesticides and GMO-expressed pesticides are both harmful, one may be more harmful than the other, or that organic is the only safe way to go. But not eating vegetables because of the price of organic may be worse. Science should inform this, but it seems to be incomplete at this time.
The separate issue of labelling has important consequences. In the US, a Natural Rights Republic, the issue of Free Speech is a very important one. It's incredibly dangerous to tread on it for some perceived short-term benefit. For that reason I'm glad the California proposition to mandate labelling failed (whether it really did or not is a separate issue). Compelled speech is one of the worst kinds of free speech infringements.
But the root of the problem lies not in compelled speech, but restrictions on free speech imposed by the FDA. It forbids companies from putting "GMO Free" on their products, so voluntary labelling can't happen. They told Polaner (All Fruit maker) that they couldn't put "GMO Free" on their strawberry spread because a strawberry is produce, "not an organism". They told Spectrum (oils refiner) that their No-GMO label would imply that there is something wrong with GMO's so they couldn't use it.
I'd like to have more information on the foods I buy at the store. It's clear that 'the market' wants to provide it. Freedom of speech isn't just a good idea, it's the Supreme Law. It's time the FDA stopped breaking it.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. I must have missed something. Wasn't this thread about food labeling?
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Funny)
Right? Nobody eats Jews, the meat is way to stringy...
Mods (Score:5, Interesting)
Pointing out the fact that even people have been unjustly demonized by a label is both informative and insightful. It does not equate anyone's view with that of the Nazi's, but (for anyone who knows their history) it is a vivid description of the power a label can have over human behavior. The Irish did it differently, when the English forced them to wear green, they turned it into a symbol of pride.
Re:Mods (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't the label. It's the negative stigma associated with Jews. Fixing the problem involves correcting the negative stigma - teaching kids that there's nothing wrong with being Jewish - they're just people like everyone else, and that they've been unfairly targeted in their past just because of their race.
The same goes for GMO foods. The problem isn't the label, it's the negative stigma they've picked up. Fixing the problem means openly engaging and educating people on what GMO is, and what dangers are real and fake. Hiding behind a ban on labels just fuels the conspiracy that they have something they to hide.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, however the fact is, labeling implies warning, and it applies in both cases.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it, is that if Monsanto or whoever is so proud of their invention, they should properly label the product so that people can make a choice. Whether or not they're informed is not really the issue since they have no way of knowing without the labeling.
From my perspective, mankind isn't even remotely smart enough to control a mistake through genetic engineering of food. Let's put a leash on this now and make them do the tests just like any other product. Let consumers decide with a label, just like any other product.
Encouraging wider adoption of GMOs through deceit is wrong.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for the red herring.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Funny)
Those should be labeled too. The damn grocery store insists upon merely labeling them as "herring," or the more insidious "pickled herring."
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody's saying that. The argument is that allowing people to force (over 7x less efficient for plants) themselves on a "natural" diet leads to starvation of people who are priced out of the market by this. It also leads to more land use, pollution, chemical contamination, energy expenditure, etc, to compensate for the lesser efficiency.
And of course, natural foods are less safe when it comes to food diseases that can harm humans.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Insightful)
The forces at work to put GMO crops into the market is every bit as political as the movement to have the food produced from the same crops labeled. Your suggestion that the desire to have GMO labeling on food is merely a political movement makes it no less important.
Look, remove the incentive with patents and we'll see how important it really is to the companies that want to "feed the world.
You're right, I could educate myself and I do. But most people would like a guide. Here's a sample: "His survey found that 91 percent of people want GMOs labeled, while 81 percent "strongly favor" such labeling." http://www.rodale.com/gmo-labeling [rodale.com]
But then again, the will of the people doesn't matter, does it? Corporate profits are more important, aren't they?
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly.
We don't even label food as to genus and species, why bother with this level of detail?
Food labels are there to serve a specific purpose: nutritional information.
Labeling for superstition is simply wrong headed.
And don't even get me started on "organic" labeling.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be in favour of ignorance. The thing you are trying to ignore is People want to know!
When it comes to food no lets be more general and apply this to products in general.
place of origin - people like to support their local economy or enjoy a product from a particular region for example champagne from france or a watch from Switzerland. You might prefer Texas beef to Argentinian or Brazillian Beef.
The Organic label i am fine with that, I don't tend to buy organic food it usually costs more but there are definitely people who do and organic food also tends to be less wasteful of food as sizing is a lot looser than with your standard supermarket sizes,
Potato's can be from marble sized to a good pound or two in weight. I personally have no issue with having a single potato to peel (its quicker and there is less peel).
There are vast numbers of vegetables which go to waste if they do not match the supermarkets size guidelines. If we are talking about yield and costs to produce shouldn't we also look at sizes and blemishes, such as cracked onion skins.
Eggs can be free-range, organic, barn raised or factory farmed. do you care? maybe not. With chicken diet makes a difference, corn fed chicken has a yellow tinge to the meat and there is more meat on the bone too.
GM is another choice people want to make the same as they can look at a pack of sausages and see the E numbers they are free to choose to buy or not to buy. My personally most disliked phrase on a pack of burgers "Mechanically reclaimed meat" I also look at fat content and sugar content oh and water content too and soya content too.
I would also like to know the company producing the products name, I will not buy Sony for example a bias fairly commonly shared on Slashdot. I also will not buy from Smithfield meat or Japanese Tuna. I'd rather buy Irish Beef instead of British and support my local farmers. Your biases may vary.
My dad is allergic to gluten, want to make him ill just give him food with flour in it. It's quite handy for him to have gluten free labels on food. People do want to know what they are buying and GM is one of the things people want to know about GM crops maybe cheaper to produce due to bigger yields and less reliance on chemical fertilizers so let the price reflect that. Same with irradiated food and uht milk.
If you want to encourage people to buy GM food then first you need to give people the choice, people need to be aware that there are people eating GM food with no ill effects and that GM foods are as tasty as the non GM version if not more so. You are not going to gain acceptance of GM foods by flat out refusing to say which products are GM and which are not. By hiding the GM status of a food product you invite suspicion, if your being too cagey people will be convinced there is something wrong with GM food.
GM food needs to be marketed as such or it will always have a stigma attached to it. But lets not ignore the real reason for not labelling GM as GM. Sales would tank and corporations would lose money and who pays for the Government, Corporate Industry. In another thread there were snarky comments about people who boycott Sony (do you think Sony cares) maybe they do, maybe not, but its clear that there is an industry terrified of the fall out over GM labelling.
Re: (Score:3)
If there were some genuine allergy concern (like with peanuts) then I'd think they should put it on there in a manner consistent with "contains peanuts" labeling.
So far that doesn't seem to be an issue. On the whole, it seems promising as a method to remove allergens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Allergenicity [wikipedia.org]
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
Still a red herring. Stick to the subject of GMOs. Do I have to right to know if the crops used to make the food is GMO or not? If no, then you favor deceit. If so, then we have a basis for discussion of how and when to label the food,
They manage in Europe, why not here?
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Insightful)
You miss the point entirely. Consumers want to make a choice regardless of whether they cause harm or not. Even if their fears are unfounded, it is still a modification of the food.
Let them have it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand Lynas' conversion.
However, the environment [sic] of GMO crops is what is troubling, Monsanto being the focus of this, primarily.
As nice as Lynas' worry about all of us having freedom to have access to foods, what about the freedom of farmers to continue to produce said food crops? If the only legal way for farmers to get seed is to buy it from Monsanto, every year, then we're all fucked. The farmers who try to raise crops w/o using Monsanto-infected products risk losing it all if Monsanto deter
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To feed a growing world population (with an exploding middle class demanding more and better-quality food), we must take advantage of all the technology available to us, including GMOs.
There is OVERPRODUCTION of food, but the capitalists do not allow for redistribution of goods (they prefer destroying food) so the USA is fat and Africa is dying of starvation. Also the GM crops don't have significantly higher yields for this "argument" to hold water or even grain. The sole purpose of GMO now on the market is to control food production (see India's "success" with GMO) or we would see abundance of drought and frost resistant, nitrogen fixing crops.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not like farmers or even government officials sit down and say "we have all this extra food material that we aren't selling that starving Africans could sure use....fuck those guys though - burn it!" You are talking about average households not using all of the food they purchase and being forced to discard up to 40% of it [http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf] because it is ALREADY bad and cannot be safely eaten. I'm not saying that a significant amount of perfectly good food product does not end up in the trash because people are retarded, I'm just saying that the window of opportunity to ship that shit out to Africa without an incredible cost expenditure is very very small and has to start immediately after processing. Ultimately the evil capitalist Americans are not the only ones discarding food at a huge rate, either - this is a problem for almost every first world nation to address.
With regard to your assertion that GM crops don't have significantly higher yields, your claim is absolutely false and has no basis in scientific fact. From Monsanto (I know - somewhat biased but based off of an independent study so I put more merit in this than in what you've said because all you have is words and emotions): [http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/do-gm-crops-increase-yield.aspx]
The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:
Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.
You may be referring to an article in UK's 'The Independent' claiming that a university study proves that yield is lower [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html]. The author of the study has discredited this sensationalist bullshit piece of pseudo-journalism himself [http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/FILELIB.NSF/0/3FCACF5C93CFA9A18525743A006C7630/$file/Gordon_Fact_Sheet.pdf] and identified that the purpose of the study was not to study yields and that the article was in fact largely false and corrupted many statements he had made. If you're referring to that study or any of the others that anti-GMO nuts like you typically won't shut up about - I have yet to see a study that has not been disproven or is not extremely out of date. During its infancy, GM production may have been worse - there may have been modifications made that even made things inedible but this is all part of the experimental process to augment the capabilities of the food products we have to better survive and to increase yields. So we're not creating crops that can survive in the arctic tundra and yield 700% more food yet - we should just stop altogether and say "fuck it - not worth it"?
Now to discuss the India situation - you're right (at least partially) for once. In this instance, GMO has been used to control food production rather than to augment it and help with the problem. This is not an asshole USA problem - this is a problem with the Indian government assisting with exploiting
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
And I'm going to call bullshit on that:
To feed a growing world population (with an exploding middle class demanding more and better-quality food), we must take advantage of all the technology available to us, including GMOs.
There is OVERPRODUCTION of food, but the capitalists do not allow for redistribution of goods (they prefer destroying food) so the USA is fat and Africa is dying of starvation. Also the GM crops don't have significantly higher yields for this "argument" to hold water or even grain. The sole purpose of GMO now on the market is to control food production (see India's "success" with GMO) or we would see abundance of drought and frost resistant, nitrogen fixing crops.
i see your whining and i raise you one Norman Ernest Borlaug [wikipedia.org] who HAS saved lives with his modified plants... A BILLION OF THEM ... read it and weep my friend
Norman Ernest Borlaug (March 25, 1914 – September 12, 2009) was an American agronomist, humanitarian and Nobel laureate who has been called "the father of the Green Revolution" and "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives". He is one of six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal and was also awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honor.
Borlaug received his Ph.D. in plant pathology and genetics from the University of Minnesota in 1942. He took up an agricultural research position in Mexico, where he developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties.
During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations. These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.
Later in his life, he helped apply these methods of increasing food production to Asia and Africa.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
capitalists do not allow for redistribution of goods (they prefer destroying food) so the USA is fat and Africa is dying of starvation
Western governments subsidize crops produced in their own countries and African producers can't compete because of those subsidies - that's not capitalism.
Also the GM crops don't have significantly higher yields for this "argument" to hold water or even grain.
The first generation of commercial GM crops targeted lowering costs by reducing herbicide/pesticide use, not increasing yields, because that was the simplest, easiest thing to try. Water- and nitrogen-efficient crops are in development now that the technology is more mature, the regulatory environment is stable, and more companies are working on the problem.
The sole purpose of GMO now on the market is to control food production or we would see abundance of drought and frost resistant, nitrogen fixing crops.
Right, because reworking large parts of a plant's metabolism is exactly as difficult as adding a gene for a single protein. *eye roll*
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Funny)
Platonic model of the universe? Really?
Really. How ridiculous was that. Everyone knows the model of the universe is purely sexual.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know. The way I read it, he was first an anti-GMO crusader, and now he has become a pro-GMO crusader. Neither one I'm too fond of.
Genetic manipulation is a tool. It's neither good nor bad. There's all kinds of baggage associated with GMO (hi, Monsanto patents!), and some GM techniques I find highly questionable (plants that produce their own insecticide and which we're supposed to eat?). All are things that can make GMOs bad - but they are things that need to be considered in the context of creating GMOs, not as being a fundamental characteristic of GMOs.
I really wish that people would stop fighting over whether something is genetically modified, and focus on what the modification is, what its impact is on organisms consuming it, its impact on non-GMOs of the same family, and whether there are any patents on it that can escape into the wild (still waiting for someone to sue Gaia because she is copying stuff that someone has a patent on).
Unfortunately, I don't see too much discussion around this, and just a lot of yelling around GMO bad! GMO good!
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, GMO is not something easily identifiable. For people who are not that interested in the science involved it's fairly intangible. You can't really go out and say non organic apples! these must be monsanto! or Organic apples! These cannot be monsanto! Not to mention that governments dont tend to give a shit, outside of Europe.
Monsanto, patents aside, does horrible shit with GMO. It's not limited to their patents. So does Cargill, who happens to make all sorts of falsely claimed "healthy products". Unethical companies continue to perpetually do unethical things. That doesn't change.
So where's the answer? I don't see one. I don't even see a path towards meaningful dialogue given that the gov't is too busy allowing things like corn subsidies to give a shit about whether or not organic food has side effects, etc.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
The path to win is radical transparency. GMO-producing companies want to prevent their products from being labeled as GMO products, because people won't buy them. This is a legitimate concern, but may be motivated by a legitimate concern as well: the product may have been genetically engineered to be harmful. Instead of making GMO labeling illegal, which it is in many cases now, make it more detailed, so that I can see the difference between GMO that I'm fine with, and GMO that I'm not fine with.
E.g., I never want to buy a GMO product with built-in insecticides or herbicide resistance (I don't care about the herbicide resistance per se, just the fact that any such product was no doubt heavily sprayed with herbicides). I also never want to buy a GMO product that contains suicide genes. And I never want to buy a GMO product that is patented by any company that is willing to sue a farmer for patent infringement, even if the product is otherwise winning.
If you have a GMO vegetable that doesn't fall into any of these categories, I have NO PROBLEM buying it. But that's tough, because right now I pretty much have to avoid anything that isn't labeled organic if I want to avoid the types of GMO I object to, and even that isn't a guarantee. So if someone comes out with a GMO product that I would in principle buy, I won't in practice buy it.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly what type of "horrible shit" are you talking about?
Basically, standard [naturalnews.com] big business horrible stuff. [huffingtonpost.com] This is behavior that lots of megacorps engage in, Monsanto just uses a new set of tools [readersupportednews.org].
I don't consider their GM stuff to be evil, but Monsanto's predatory practices are pretty shameful, and organic farmers do tend to take it in the shorts, more than most.
Monsanto is certainly not alone in these types of scandals. [businessinsider.com]
This is one reason why I think that classifying businesses as "people" is ridiculous. If people behaved the way that corporations do, they would be locked up. However, corporations are rewarded for that type of behavior.
He picked the wrong battle.
Whenever a Mr. Natural [mccrarey.com] starts lecturing me about how we need to all return to hunter-gathere lifestyle, I counter with "No problem! We just need to exterminate about 90% of the human population on Earth. Would you like to start?"
Whether we like it or not, the future is here, and we can't survive without factory farming, container transportation, nuclear and fossil energy, farm fishing, etc.
There's just too damn many of us.
The only answer to "too damn many" is "culling the herd [gocomics.com]."
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
this should not be a black and white argument, and - admirable though this guy's public volte-face is - it doesn't really help the debate much at all.
OK sure - there is a growing population and a possibly impending food crisis. But there is also plenty to suggest that this needn't be the case even without GMO crops, and is a result of lop-sided globalised capitalist economics. Why don't we fix the existing demand and supply imbalances, instead of just saying 'yeah we need more food, GM is OK after all guys'.? I'm surprised this guy doesn't seem worried that, even if GM can solve global food demand, the patents involved mean that food supply will be EVEN MORE concentrated in the hands of a relatively few powerful companies/individuals. That's not to say that GM is inherently bad, but from the admittedly limited amount I know about GM patents, we would be wise to open this market up before GM production really takes off in a big way.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes it so ridiculous? If Monsanto is willing to stand behind the safety of their products, they won't mind accepting liability for them. I think it's a fair trade if they want royalties on their patents.
And no, I am not being disingenuous. Please enlighten me if you think I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, by far the most questionable GM that I'm aware of is the terminator gene, in which plants are designed to not produce a viable seed. The sole reason for that is to prevent a farmer from doing what farmers everywhere used to do (and many still do) of saving some of the crop to plant next year, forcing the farmer to buy more seed than they otherwise would.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
Did you RTFA? The guy actually admits that "terminator gene" is one of those common "everybody knows" fallacies about GM crops that he himself believed in, but which aren't true - i.e. that it is not something that is actually used.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, why would they use a terminator gene when they can make much more money by having someone plant some of their seed, and then suing the fuck out of everyone downwind of him who reserve the next year's seed from this year's harvest
Can you give any actual example of that happening? The usual case that is cited is that of Percy Schmeiser [wikipedia.org], but he wasn't sued for merely having his crops cross-polinated - he was sued for specifically harvesting seeds from those crops that he knew were cross-pollinated to plant them next year, artificially separating them from those which were not so cross-pollinated.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
A pollen cannot "trespass" on your property, it's not a sentient being.
If you want a more or less straightforward analogy, imagine this situation. Suppose that I'm sitting somewhere in a publicly accessible place and playing a copyrighted song that I have legally acquired through some kind of speakers. Provided that there's no large audience gathered around, it's perfectly legal for me to do so. Now, you are walking by, with a recorder in your pocket, which duly records the song. You have now created and possess a fresh new copy of a copyrighted song - but not intentionally so. Now, any reasonable person would say that this does not constitute copyright infringement, unless you deliberately knew that I would be playing the song, and went there specifically to record it.
This is the point at which Percy was once pollen landed on his field. And the court agreed that the mere fact that it pollinated his crops and they produced seeds with Monsanto's GM stuff did not constitute the infringement.
Now, getting back to our analogy. Once you have the recording, you could copy it to some other media, and maybe even create several different copies. Does it constitute copyright infringement? If you just copy the whole contents of your recorder's memory, that includes many other things apart from the song, then it would be hard to claim that you knew that it is copyrighted - i.e. show intent - so you would be in the clear. But if you actually went through the recording minute by minute, identified this particular song, and only copied the part of the recording that corresponds to it - and did so several times at that - then you have clearly shown intent. If you have also known that the song is copyrighted when you did that, then that's a clear-cut case of copyright infringement. It doesn't matter that the song "trespassed" on your property in form of your pocket recorder. It's the deliberate act of copying it from that recorder elsewhere with full knowledge of it being copyrighted that makes you infringing.
And that is where Percy ended up. He deliberately sprayed the newly grown canola plants on his field with Roundup to identify which parts of the field have the resistant gene, and treated them separately from the rest of the harvest - he kept all the seeds from them to replant, rather than the usual proportion. He also knew what Roundup Ready was, so he couldn't claim ignorance of what he was looking for. Hence, his replanting of those seeds is what constituted infringement of Monsanto's patent.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Informative)
Genetic manipulation is a tool. It's neither good nor bad.
His point, so far as I can take away from TFA, is that GM crops are necessary to maintain crop yields required to feed everyone at the future stable population level (which he puts at 9 billion). So he's not saying that GM is good per se, but rather than the goal it helps achieve (no starvation, better caloric yields for everyone) is good.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Interesting)
(plants that produce their own insecticide and which we're supposed to eat?)
You mean like garlic? Or peppers? Cinnamon?
Why do you think they tastes like that? It's only when you dilute them that they taste good. They evolved that way, modifying their own genes, to thwart the things that would eat them. They're trying their damned best to be poison, and failing deliciously.
But yeah, snorting cinnamon or eating nothing but garlic will mess you up. Because when concentrated, they ARE poison. Dosage makes the drug. With all GMO food-stuffs, there's a need to test just what the hell is different about it. Which is... yeah... exactly what you said. But anyway, built-in insect repellant, not that crazy of an idea. There's prior art in nature.
Re: (Score:3)
I know what those are like, and what they contain.
Are you sure? Do you know exactly what mutations are present between the wild type and the cultivated? Because the GMO folks actually do.
Not defending Monsanto, they're pricks. But pretending that natural mutations are just so awesome and specific while artificial ones aren't is silly.
Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read his speech? Because I did, and I don't agree with you at all.
Lynas was a knee-jerk environmentalist who was an anti-GMO crusader. Then he got into climate change... and became wise in the ways of science (though, mercifully, he has not yet shared his theory on the prevention of earthquakes using sheep bladders).
In his speech, he dug into some of the specifics you bring up... and emphasized the importance of the science.
If you don't see a lot of discussion about the specifics, you're probably not looking very hard.
Fallacy of False Choice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)
I find this refreshing. If only everyone would take the time to reevaluate their beliefs from time to time we might be so much better off.
Re: (Score:3)
this is exactly why I never put anyone on ignore on web forums. (Well... I shouldn't say *never*... it's exceedingly rare, anyway - and only if the person is obviously delusional and belligerent in their communication with me. If they form their arguments well, though, I'm going to read it for comprehension.)
If you don't agree with me, then persuade me as to why I'm wrong... if you're rational, I'll listen. (read, whatever.)
Re:Refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. I rather enjoy listening to a well-formed opposing viewpoint. If someone makes a statement and can answer follow-up questions (particularly, "Why?"), it's usually a statement worth considering. It's unfortunate how many people can't explain why they believe something (especially in politics, but that's wandering off the point), but are still unwilling to listen to other viewpoints.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Refreshing (Score:4, Insightful)
I find this refreshing. If only everyone would take the time to reevaluate their beliefs from time to time we might be so much better off.
It cuts both ways though. Ever met someone who has recently "found god"?
Is he OK w/ Monsanto's lawsuits? (Score:4, Interesting)
How about Monsanto dragging innocent farmers into court?
Re:Is he OK w/ Monsanto's lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most likely not. Saying that GMO is not evil is not the same as condoning Monsanto's actions in court. Strawman much?
Re:Is he OK w/ Monsanto's lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't separate the two so yeah. If you're supporting GMO's then you are supporting a framework that allows for the corporate monopolies in farming.
Patents are part of the landscape. You can't just pretend they're not there.
Re:Is he OK w/ Monsanto's lawsuits? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, there is also open source, publicly funded GMO research being opposed or deliberately sabotaged by anti-science activists. Monsanto =/= GMO. Saying GMO is bad because Monsanto is bad is like saying operating systems are bad because Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
Saying that GMO is not evil is not the same as condoning Monsanto's actions in court. Strawman much?
Until/unless the two are seperable, GMO will be evil for as long as it enables corporate control of the food supply.
I mean, there are entire countries were farmers cannot save last year's seeds to plant next years crops.
This is nothing more than another form of economic rent, made even worse by the fact that it is rent on something that was previously free.
Re:Is he OK w/ Monsanto's lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most likely not. Saying that GMO is not evil is not the same as condoning Monsanto's actions in court. Strawman much?
Agreed the two should not be conflated, although it's hard not to since Monsanto has 90%+ of the market share, so it's their way of the highway. If there were an AMD-like underdog, the first thing they would compete on would be reasonable licensing terms. But instead, we have a company that is acting like MicroSquash in the '90s, and just as with MS they prefer their critics to promote Luddite-ism rather than focusing in on the antitrust aspects of this.
I do disagree with TFA, however. It's not anti-GMO activism that kills small GMO startups, Monsanto does that very well on their own. If they don't buy out a promising startup outright they just deny it access to the market and it dies a slow death. For all the waving and shouting, anti-GMO activists can't even get labelling laws passed.
Speaking of Monsanto (Score:4, Insightful)
what happens in the lab and used in the fields will find its way in to the wild (it is unavoidable)
Bin the Problems that GMO Crops Have (Score:5, Insightful)
Cross contamination & subsequent loss of organic certification isn't an issue then? How about Monsanto dragging innocent farmers into court?
I would personally advocate slicing GMO issues into separate bins. What you're referring to is the Intellectual Property bin which is a problem with (at least the US) most countries and the ownership (whether an instance of or the general use of) genetic material. Put all those lawsuits and patents and copyright crap in one bin.
Then you have another bin where we analyze the human element of consumption of GMO foods. What is the process to determine when something has undergone enough testing and is ready to push it forward? How many years of human trials must be held before it can be released? We do this with drugs but strangely, I haven't heard of much about this with GMO crops -- why is that?
Lastly we have a more open problem like environmental issues both surrounding the plant's effect on its environment and also the adjusted actions of the humans cultivating this crop. For example: with Roundup ready plants from Monsanto, have we really analyzed what the increased usage of chemicals like Roundup has on the immediate vicinity of the fields? Do we know that these genetic constructs that are taken from an insect and inserted into a plant do not adversely affect the pollen and have indirect affects on hay fever or honey bees? Again, how do we test this and how long should it be tested before it's pushed nationwide.
Lynas raises an interesting point I had not considered -- that my above desires for process and bureaucracy will prevent a small company from venturing into this field. On the other hand, we've been using selective breeding to move past a lot of the hurdles Lynas mentioned that GMO crops are supposed to move us even further past. It's unfortunate but this isn't a black and white issue and I'm against the unfettered proliferation of gene constructs that have been taken from other organisms and inserted into plants without sufficient testing.
The process of DNA -> Amino Acid -> Protein is still a very difficult puzzle for us as humans and I feel we should not openly experiment with inserting stuff at Point A when we don't know the full effects that yields in points B and C. I feel like there is still a lot to be achieved with selective breeding and until we have a better understanding of protein folding, we should shy away from smashing DNA into strands of plants unless it's absolutely critical to humanity. Go ahead and do that stuff in a lab to better understand it but leave it in a lab until there's a process that ensures it is safe.
What is safe? (Score:3)
Plant have evolved to produce a tremendous amount of pesticide and herbicide, fungicide chemicals to compete and survive. They have also evolved to be tolerant of herbicides produced by other plants and viruses. Thus even organic produce has large numbers of completely untested chemicals that are naturally produced by the plants themselves. I think many people somehow form a cognative dissonance if they think about this too much, so they basically do doublethink.
Some of these natural defensive chemicals i
moving forward I see (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like he has already found someone else to vilify.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, he is going after other anti-science people. Climate change is happening and has been verified even by studies commisioned by groups seeking to disprove it. Anyone still denying it is either an industry shill or someone with an agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
He most likely already has thought about, unlike climate change skeptics which hold a position that is not supported by science.
ringed some bells (Score:4, Insightful)
Great and all... BUT (Score:5, Informative)
This is great and all that he saw the light when it comes to science... but with technology and science comes responsibility as well. Two key issues come to mind:
(1) Cross pollination of farmers crops, and then demanding royalties from the seed owners,
(2) and engineering the crops to disable re-planting the same seeds for the purpose of profit.
One actual example would be allowing a patent to monsanto on basmati rice...
link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jan/31/gm.food [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Great and all... BUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You realize that Issue 2 disables issue 1 right? The crops they are making sterile can't cross pollinate because they are sterile.
This is something I've always thought is ironic about anti-gmo. People will in the same breath condemn cross pollination and the spreading of the genes and at the same time condemn the sterilization gene because it prevents cross pollination and seed reuse.
As others have said there is two issues, the intellectual property issue and the GMO issue. They are separate and arguing the
Sounds to me that he found "paycheck" (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, there is plenty of science that shows issues related to GMO crops. If not the crops themselves, the fact that a round up ready corn means several times more round up applied to the ground. This is scienfitically documented.
So I am of the opinion this guy is probably just some bought out loon.
Science, and advocate of real science, would concede there is far too much we just do not know at this point. And MANY fears that were pointed to, have been proved valid. Like infection of wild specieis.
That's SCIENCE...
Re:Sounds to me that he found "paycheck" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sounds to me that he found "paycheck" (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, there is plenty of science that shows issues related to GMO crops. If not the crops themselves, the fact that a round up ready corn means several times more round up applied to the ground. This is scienfitically documented.
Can you cite your sources? Peer reviewed papers from respectable sources?
I don't ask to be dickish; I'm genuinely keen to read it. A cursory Google search found a French study that showed "Roundup ready corn to be toxic", which was then widely panned by the scientific establishment. Anything better?
So from one radical position to the other (Score:3)
The two options aren't unquestioning acceptance and total ban. GMO with strict regulations can be useful. Without it, it's a disaster waiting to happen. He is just a professional activist who can't accept that the world isn't black and white.
It's not just science (Score:5, Insightful)
Congradulations, that doesn't mean GMO is always g (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations, that doesn't mean GMO is always good.
It is a bad thing to breed pesticides into our food supply without absolute certainty of they are safe.
It is not a bad thing to have to label GMO foods for what they are.
So he too have gone the direction of... (Score:3)
....population reduction.
This can be in part accouplished with sterilizing GMO's
The real reason he changed his mind
for the science - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ [youtube.com]
population reduction is as well in United Nations Agenda 21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21 [wikipedia.org]
A lot of these people don't understand... (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago the closest grocery store to where I was living was a Coop. Which was great in the summer because it was stocked with a lot of fresh stuff from local farmers (it was a rural college town).
Well one of my biggest sources of income is the family farms I've inherited along with my Dad that we lease out. We're semi involved helping the farmer with trying new methods on our farms trying to boost yields (Rice & Soybeans are the primary crop, some years corn). This is mainly my father as he's retired and it gives him something to do, but as he's gotten up into his 70's I've started to take a more involved role in things.
One time I was at the Coop and commented about rice and lack of a particular brand that we sold our rice to which led to a conversation with one of the patrons who flipped out when I mentioned we had switched to a new hybrid seed. She went on this total anti-GMO rant at which point there were several people looking on and I said, "I said Hybrid. As in Rice A was bred with Rice B to produce the strain we plant. Farmers have been doing this for centuries now. Pretty much everything in your bag has been Genetically Modified using cross breeding."
Then I left and went on about my business leaving her red in the face not exactly sure how to respond to that.
And that's what I've never understood. To these people using cross breeding and classical Mendelian genetics to modify plants are fine. But go in scientifically and do the same thing in a sophisticated lab and suddenly it's evil.
Re:A lot of these people don't understand... (Score:4, Informative)
And that's what I've never understood. To these people using cross breeding and classical Mendelian genetics to modify plants are fine. But go in scientifically and do the same thing in a sophisticated lab and suddenly it's evil.
There is much you're leaving out, but I don't have time to address it all. I'll address the biggest problem with your posting, which I quoted above. If we were to go in and do exactly the same thing that natural crossbreeding does, but just do it faster and more efficiently, I don't think there would be nearly the opposition that we're seeing with GMO crops.
But that isn't what we're doing. We are genetically modifying crops in ways that would never happen naturally, such as splicing frog genes into our vegetables. Even this, by itself, could possibly pass muster if there were anything even remotely close to enough data over anything even remotely close to an adequate period of time showing that the practice were safe. Unfortunately, what little data we have over the short time period we've been evaluating that data are indicating that it's a dangerous practice. Putting this kind of crap in our food supply at this point in time, with what we know about the results (such as it is), should be a criminal act.
Re:A lot of these people don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um Not Correct. People seem to misunderstand the origins of GMO technology. The technology that allows transplanting of genes was developed by copying natural processes that do exactly the same thing.
Transposons, retrotransposons, proviruses and other mobile genetic elements naturally translocate to new sites in a genome, and over long time scales will move genetic material across species. It happens all the time, in all forms of life. The speed at which it can happen is sometimes frightening - the rapidity at which resistance to antibiotics spread is due directly to natural genetic transfer.
Plant tissue culture and introduction of foreign germ plasm across species lines is a technology that is hundreds of years old. Almost all of our grain is produced by trans-species crops developed long before modern GMO came into existence.
The lack of basic understanding of what is going on here after so many years of debates on this topic is shocking.
Devil in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares what he has to say?
Any blanket assertion of GMOs being bad for you is just as idiotic and pointless as a blanket assertion GMOs are not bad for you.
Every case must be judged on the merits and it must not stop with the question of the qualities of the product. One must also consider the secondary effects playing god has on the environment and fucked up geopolitics of globalization meets Monsanto.
I'm all for GMOs... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What exploding middle class? The one in China a (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks only to an extremely broad definition of middle class that would include many that westerners would describe as working poor.
Re: (Score:3)
What exploding middle class? The one in China and maybe India?
In some places in Africa, too.
And? Are you saying that those people are somehow not middle class?
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense.
People are earning less and working more. Meanwhile access to basic physical needs like health care are on the decline. We are headed for a next Guilded Age and many people seem to be all for it.
Re:What exploding middle class? The one in China a (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately (Score:4, Insightful)
So truue. All those papers you cited made for quite the convincing case.
Re: (Score:3)
research has shown some GMO's are harmful.
Research has shown that some humans kill. What's your point?
Re: (Score:3)
I grew up in farm country. I know what Roundup is. Anything that is engineered to be "Roundup Ready" is something I would rather avoid. I want LESS chemicals in my food rather than MORE.
Perhaps we should leave genetic meddling to agronomists. As things are now, most of the genetic meddling is being done by POISON SALESMEN to help the sales of POISON.
Public policy is a little more complex than some lab results.
The whole "anti-science" smear is just a red herring as well as being bad form just for being an in
Re:GMO problems nothing to do with science (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry... If we get hungry enough, we'll eat the Monsanto Board of Directors....
Re:Mmmhmm, I smell something bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it's only those Chinese and Russians that can influence the weather though, and hell an upstanding US company would never do such a thing would they?
See, there you go, losing what credibility you may have had. Couldn't just be that they saw an opportunity and took it, could it?
It would be great if you provided some actual citations for the studies you referenced.
All that aside, I too am suspicious of turnarounds in opinion like this - it's very rare that a person can admit that he was wrong on such a scale.
Re:Mmmhmm, I smell something bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
How? You ignore every study that shows GMO crops are safe, and focus on one or two (often questionable) studies that suggest there might be a problem in some way, then take that to mean it's all the work of the devil. Even though the study's authors don't say that! Here is a way you can tell if you're being irrational:
GMO saves lives. If you can't accept that, then you aren't being scientific. GMO might not be a solution in all cases, and certainly not all GMOs are safe (neither are all natural organisms), but being anti-GMO as a blanket rule is dumb.
re: every increase in crop yield (Score:4)
I'm actually going to challenge your assertion. I'd argue that the vast majority of the world's starvation problems are distribution-related, not yield related.
How much food goes to waste every year? (Quite a bit!) And how many people suffer because of a lack of food production in their immediate area, while other parts of the world produce more than enough to feed them?
"Every increase in crop yields due to the use of GM crops saves the lives of some people that would otherwise die from starvation. It's a direct and obvious relation - there's no need to do a scientific study here."
Re:Wow, Monsanto's evil tentacles reached his brai (Score:5, Informative)
Since when are terminator genes good for the environment?
"Terminator genes" are a perfect example of the scaremongering on the anti-GMO side. They were never really deployed, and Monsanto has vowed not to do so.
And even if they were, you've got the idea wrong. They weren't an environmental threat - rather, terminator genes were scary because they'd make poor farmers reliant on big industry for their seeds (Terminator genes prevent the resultant plants from having viable seeds). They COULD actually be good for the environment, as they'd prevent GM plants from spreading uncontrolled (which is another scare story).
There's pluses and minuses to GM plants for food. But the debate is dominated by people with bizarre, uninformed emotional connections to one side or the other. Like yourself. Are you as brave and open minded as the guy in the OP? Having found out you're double-wrong on this, are you going to reconsider the issue and perhaps take a moment to learn about what's at stake?
I doubt it. I think it's much more likely that you'll lash out at me because I'm mean, or something equally productive.