Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, Report Says (nbcnews.com) 378
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Genetically modified crops on the market are not only safe, but appear to be good for people and the environment, experts determined in a report released Tuesday. "The committee delved into the relevant literature, heard from 80 diverse speakers, and read more than 700 comments from members of the public to broaden its understanding of issues surrounding GE crops," the report reads. Panel members read more than 900 reports. A lot of concern centered on health effects. The committee determined the following: there is no evidence of large-scale health effects on people from genetically modified foods; there is some evidence that crops genetically engineered to resist bugs have benefited people by reducing cases of insecticide poisoning; genetically engineered crops to benefit human health, such as those altered to produce more vitamin A, can reduce blindness and deaths due to vitamin A deficiency; using insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant crops did not damage plant or insect diversity and in some cases increased the diversity of insects; sometimes the added genes do leak out to nearby plants -- a process called gene flow -- but there is no evidence it has caused harm; in general, farmers who use GM soybean, cotton, and corn make more money but it does depend on how bad pests are and farming practices; GM crops do reduce losses to pests, and if farmers use insect-resistant crops but don't take enough care, sometimes pest insects develop resistance. The National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have put the evidence up on a website for skeptics of the report. The report also includes a 'Summarized Comments Received from Members of the Public' section for people to look up the facts to answer their concerns.
And this will change nobody's minds.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are people today who are concerned that there is DNA in their food. They will not believe this report any more than the people who think global warming is a lie or that the creationist 'museum' is factual..
The issue of GMO food has passed rational debate and entered into religious fervor. Some silly report isn't going to change a thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this will change nobody's minds.. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that isn't really so extreme. If you use these seeds, you can't keep back seeds from your crops for next year's crops, a practice that is as old as agriculture itself. This might sound like it isn't a big deal "Just don't use GMO seeds", but it is getting so the variety of seeds that aren't GMO is diminishing, leaving few choices. I'm not claiming it is evil, but there are some ramifications that haven't been worked out.
This is why some 3rd world countries won't use it, not fear of GMO itself, but they don't want to be beholden to an American company for their seeds. I really don't blame them. I'm a USAF vet, all American guy, but I wouldn't trust US companies (or our govt) strong enough for the food supply of another nation. We have a bad history of using shit like that to our advantage.
Re:And this will change nobody's minds.. (Score:4, Informative)
If you use these seeds, you can't keep back seeds from your crops for next year's crops, a practice that is as old as agriculture itself.
1. Not true for all GMO crops. Golden Rice is patent free
2. Keeping back seed died on most farms in the USA quite some time before GMO became a thing. Buying new hybrid seed each year has been around for a while because it's more profitable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Keeping back seed died on most farms in the USA quite some time before GMO became a thing..
citation needed
Re: (Score:3)
Keeping back seed died on most farms in the USA quite some time before GMO became a thing.
So why do the companies selling GMO seed need to prevent farmers from doing this then? If nobody does it then it won't hurt their profits at all. The only reason which makes sense is that it would prevent them from jacking up prices to obscene levels sometime in the future when there are no alternatives left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Some used to, but it is indeed inconvenient to get sued by large corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Given his animosity towards reality, he probably should just stop eating in general.
Re:And this will change nobody's minds.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh. Yes they do. At least the farms I've lived on have. Its called Seed saving, and its standard practice.
Re: (Score:3)
I myself prefer not to eat foods that have had their DNA tampered with using viruses and bacteria.
Since that has been happening for as long as life, you will go hungry. Did you know, mitocondria was a bacteria that invaded most cells long ago? You just won't find a single food that did not have its DNA tampered with by viruses and bacteria.
Re: (Score:3)
I can find no references in agricultural history claiming that stocking seeds is bad. In fact I find quite the opposite to be true, and instances of civilizations starving to death because they had to use all of their seed during a hard time.
Did you say the wrong thing? If not, I want citations which disprove everything I can find in every history book I have ever read.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are also companies who profit from selling seeds and have a history of lawsuits against independent farmers for allegedly stealing seeds. It's amazing how these "debates" mostly revolve around the asinine extremes isn't it?
One lawsuit against one farmer who deliberately bred GM plants. He determined which were which by exposing them to glyphosate and breeding the ones that survived.
Anyways, it's moot because that particular patent expired last year.
Propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
Such a small fragment of truth you should have at least tried to verity. From a quick Google [google.com] search the number is more than 140 lawsuits filed by one company (Monsanto) against farmers. This does not include any of the other companies performing genetic modification or licensed by Monsanto to use their seeds and their lawsuits.
The fragment of truth is that one lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court who upheld Monsanto's rights to sue.
The second tiny fragment of truth is that one patent expired. There are hundreds of thousands of seeds on patent.
All that said, when Monsanto goes after a specific farmer even if the patent is expired the claim generally puts farmers out of business.
The problem is not GMO as much as shit business practices who ensure that consumers get fucked because competition does not exist. A pox on all the people modding down anything that can possibly be perceived as anti-GMO.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Maybe the only person here who gets it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
... and have a history of lawsuits against independent farmers for allegedly stealing seeds.
The farmers that were sued openly, flagrantly and repeatedly violated IP laws. The most famous example is Perry Schmeiser [wikipedia.org], a Canadian farmer who was sued by Monsanto, after he intentionally and repeatedly used patented glyphosate resistant seed. He was the subject of the wildly inaccurate documentary "David versus Monsanto". The widely held belief that Monsanto has sued farmers for innocent and unintentional infringement due to pollen blowing in on the wind is baloney.
Note: Most patents for glyphosate
DNA (Score:2)
Beyond that, people think if you eat genetically modified RNA, it will get into YOUR DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it will. The RNA in the cells of the food you eat will be digested to its constituent parts which will form the basis for proteins being synthesised in your body.
That the RNA will make it through unscathed and form "new" or "hybrid" DNA is what people seem to misunderstand.
Re: DNA (Score:2, Informative)
Well they're not entirely wrong to think that, given that miRNA from rice has been shown to alter gene expression [discovermagazine.com].
Re:And this will change nobody's minds.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not against GMO food per-se. I am against the regulatory environment surrounding GMOs. Specifically the ability for the calorie companies to do whatever they like to the genetic makeup of these plants, then get to self-certify that they're safe for consumption. All while creating licensing agreements that make it nearly impossible to perform independent studies. If this were big pharma and not big aggro, people would be up in arms. A better example of conflict of interest; the fox guarding the hen house you will not find.
GMOs may well be safe in the majority of cases--as this report tries to assert--but absent independent oversight it's truly difficult to know. Given the vast sums of money involved in the calorie business, who in their right mind can honestly believe them to operate as saints?
Re: (Score:3)
Your libertarian ideals are great right up until the real world gets applied to them.
Imaging yourself, you the consumer having contracted an incurable, debilitating illness from a new GM soybean product. Of course you have no way of knowing what caused your illness. There's no regulatory environment requiring oversight that would have identified the problem with the soybeans. Maybe it was the factory down the road, maybe it was something you ate, maybe you just happened to win the genetic lottery. All y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The issue of GMO food has passed rational debate and entered into religious fervor
On one side of the debate you have lunatics who are opposed to GMO because it's not natural, and who are portrayed as such. On the other side you have some mega-corporations who clearly manipulate the media by paying for research, paying for good press, and probably paying to have their opposition portrayed as lunatics.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest issue with GMO is that it isn't an add, it's a modification that lasts forever, infecting everything like a rampaging virus in the worst case. You want to fiddle with existing genes in a plant to express certain features? Go right ahead, I'm with you all the way. You want to inject white nose virus DNA segments into corn because it will attack a certain mold? I'll have to disagree on that one.
A very real problem is that genetically modified plants spread and outfight the existing varieties, leading to less diversity. Which isn't just a moral problem, but a risk - if some disease attacks the one remaining plant strain, we have no alternatives.
Another problem is that resistance to weed killers also means more weed killers will be used, because more weed killers can be used. Which diminishes other flora too, as well as fauna that's either directly or indirectly affected.
But the biggest problem is
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this will change nobody's minds.. (Score:4, Insightful)
A very real problem is that genetically modified plants spread and outfight the existing varieties, leading to less diversity. Which isn't just a moral problem, but a risk - if some disease attacks the one remaining plant strain, we have no alternatives.
None of the crops humans plant for food are their original state. They've been bred and hybridized so much they barely resemble the original untouched strains, which are vastly vastly outnumbered by the varieties humans found favorable. So your argument is already a wash. We've been breeding out diversity for centuries, long before GMO became an issue.
As for diseases, that's already a problem and has been a problem for so called 'natural' plants since the dawn of time, and nobody on that side of the argument ever likes to point out that GMO techniques can make foods more disease resistant. But that doesn't play into the narrative of GMO being a danger. Humans didn't kill off the Gros Michel banana, nature did. It's currently working hard to kill off the Cavendish, but GMO might save it.
Another problem is that resistance to weed killers also means more weed killers will be used, because more weed killers can be used. Which diminishes other flora too, as well as fauna that's either directly or indirectly affected.
That is some circular ass logic there. Like farmers just want to dump weed killer 24/7 because they have nothing better to do with their money. Weed killer is targeted and sprayed only when it's necessary and most effective, otherwise it's just useless.
But the biggest problem is that you can't put the genie back into the bottle if something goes wrong. GM crop research always has a non-zero risk for ill side effects (which is why there is crop research and not straight from lab to market), and a non-zero risk of escaping and spreading. Quite possibly cross-pollinating with existing species. That cannot be undone.That companies are allowed to decide on that risk being acceptable for all of us is at least problematic.
Again, why is GMO treated so differently from our other attempts at making our lives better? You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend GMO will go away. You say corporations are making the choice for us, but so far every regulatory attempt has been a thinly veiled stand by the ecologically deluded to block GMO at all costs rather than rational investigations of it's efficacy and safety. There needs to be a middle ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Shill accusations? Nooooo! (Score:2)
No self-respecting member of The Church of the All Natural Plant Food would EVER stoop to disbelief in a report about The Great Satan GMO!
Re: Shill accusations? Nooooo! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes those evil companies trying to invent ways for humans to produce more and better quality food with less pesticides
One of the type of genetic modifications performed involves modifying the plants so that you could actually use more chemical crap without hurting the produce. Now it may be safe for human consumption but it turns out that it can have unitended consequences for local environment in general. For example, using more herbicides and fertilizer to promote the growth of crops using the latter but preventing weeds from doing the same using the former results in the Gulf of Mexico becoming a eutrophicated, dead zone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No you're thinking of Roundup resistant crops.
And no, you'll still use more herbicides and insecticides on "organic" crops.
Why? Lower overall efficacy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One of the type of genetic modifications performed involves modifying the plants so that you could actually use more chemical crap without hurting the produce.
That is a misconception. It doesn't enable you to use 'more' herbicide, it enables you to change when and what you use. Instead of a series of pre- and post-emergent herbicides you can have fewer applications of a less harsh herbicide. Ideal? No, but do you have a better weed management strategy?
For example, using more herbicides and fertilizer to promote the growth of crops using the latter but preventing weeds from doing the same using the former results in the Gulf of Mexico becoming a eutrophicated, dead zone.
That's actually the exact opposite of true. Because of herbicide tolerant crops, more and more farmers have switched to no-till systems, and have used herbicide applications instead of tillage for weed control.
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Argumentum ad monsantium, that your opponent is a shill, can be used against any side in a debate, and therefore lacks substance. So can the closely related fallacy argumentum ad pomum, that your oppoment is an unpaid but mind-made-up fanboi.
Re: (Score:2)
It says it's from NBC News, but it reads like the opening speech at the annual Monsanto company picnic.
NBC issued a news story, dullard. The NAtional Academy of Sciences issued the report. I'd bet you still don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
And they also state that GE crops don't have bigger yields than non GE (so there's really no point to use them...).
The main advantages GE crop pr
Re: (Score:3)
Easy enough: that's in the report's FAQ: http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/... [nas-sites.org]
"Who is sponsoring this study?
The study is sponsored by the New Venture Fund, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Academy of Sciences."
I don't see a lot of evil, conspiring corporations in that list. I also don't see people who want to prove their version, either. I see people and organizations who have a genuine interest in food safety, and who reall
Summary is complete misread of report (Score:5, Interesting)
What about bees? (Score:2)
As I understand, it's pretty much consensus that more pesticides equals to less bees.... or am I totally wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Those are a specific class of pesticides called 'neonicotinoids' that recently rose to prominence in the industry because they're safer than just about any other pesticides, ever. Their LD50 in mammals is so high you could probably sprinkle Safari AG on your breakfast cereal with no ill effects (not recommended, however!) The problem is that they're extremely toxic to bees, much moreso than they are to any other insects.
But these chemicals are produced in a factory, and not naturally produced by plants. T
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand, it's pretty much consensus that more pesticides equals to less bees.... or am I totally wrong?
Many GMO crops, including BT-corn, use less pesticides than non-GMO crops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...GMO's REDUCE the use of pesticides/herbicides...
The GM-ed RoundUp Ready crops tolerate high amounts of the glyphosate herbicide.
Of course this will REDUCE the use of herbici... huh?
Re: (Score:3)
The GM-ed RoundUp Ready crops tolerate high amounts of the glyphosate herbicide.
Of course this will REDUCE the use of herbici... huh?
More and more weeds are also becoming glyphosate resistant [pioneer.com], so more and more farmers are back to spraying several different kinds of herbicides.
Yes, sure, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't doubt that GM crops are safe. But what about the dirty tricks companies play, such as patenting a gene sequence? Or writing contracts that forbid farmers from harvesting seed, forcing them to buy new seed each time? Or deliberately modifying the genome so the plants are fine with respect to food, but don't produce viable seeds [globalresearch.ca]?
Are those things really in society's interest?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever been to a farm? Just wondering.
Re: (Score:2)
But what about the dirty tricks companies play, such as patenting a gene sequence?
Why is that a "dirty trick"? If the gene sequence is novel, or used in a novel way, then how is that different than patenting anything else?
Or writing contracts that forbid farmers from harvesting seed, forcing them to buy new seed each time?
That isn't a "dirty trick" either, since farmers can NOT SIGN THE CONTRACT and grow non-patented seeds instead.
Or deliberately modifying the genome so the plants are fine with respect to food, but don't produce viable seeds [globalresearch.ca]?
Two problems: 1. Nobody actually does this. The technology exists, but it is not in use. 2. It would be a GOOD THING if this technology was put to use, because it would prevent GMO pollen from spreading through the environment unintentionally.
The suicide s
Re: (Score:2)
People bring up the "terminator gene" argument, but they always forget to bring up the ancient hybrid version, otherwise known as a 'mule'.
Nobody complains that if they buy a mule, they can't breed a herd of baby mules. And I'm pretty sure the patent on cross breeding a horse and a donkey expired millennia ago. Many common decorative plants are also sterile hybrids.
This isn't a problem restricted to GMOs, but it's one the genetics companies don't mind exploiting for profit. It also doesn't affect plant sa
Re: (Score:2)
don't produce viable seeds
Take seeds from your standard non GMO and try to grow tomatoes from it. It will probably work, but be rather anemic. Most crops are hybrids resulting from cross pollination, kind like a sterile mule. If you don't like this practice, then I think what you are looking for is 'heritage' agriculture.
This also goes for meat. The chicken that you buy in store are usually CornishX [wikipedia.org] and are not natural. I seriously doubt most people would want to eat a natural chicken; they don't have a lot of meat on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Natural is bettet (Score:4, Insightful)
If natural is better how come it's better to live in a man made house than a cave or a tree? If natural is better how come poisonous mushrooms, ivy, and hemlock will kill you? GMO is safe, people eat natural food and die. How did people die 100 years ago before there was any GMO? Actually if we hadn't used our instincts and brains to develop technology such as plant hybridization thousands of years ago humans would probably be extinct like most of the other species that existed on the planet. Without our ability to make things and to modify natural stuff we would be dead. GMO is safe, I have been eating GMO tomatoes and other stuff for decades and I am not dead yet. Obviously there is a way to eat GMO and not die. Just because you don't know every possible ramifications of something doesn't mean it isn't safe. You don't know every possible outcome of driving on the highway yet you do it. How can you be sure a drunk driver won't get you?
Re: (Score:2)
For those who don't want to follow the link - two cavemen are sitting around a fire. One says to the other:
"Something's just not right - our air is clean, our water is pure, we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free-range, and yet no one lives past thirty."
Cover-up (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Cover-up (Score:2)
If you think cancer is bad try starving to death from lack of food. We need GMO to make the most efficient use of land. If it does cause cancer in some people (it hasn't caused it in me yet) then we need to figure out why and fix that. I am sure the first planes humans built crashed. Heck one of the Wright brothers died in a plane crash. Today flying is one of the safest forms of transportation. Will we make mistakes with GMO, yes .. But the benefits especially long term outweigh those. If we don't have GMO
Re: Cover-up (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think cancer is bad try starving to death from lack of food. We need GMO to make the most efficient use of land.
Or we need to stop the population growth, mainly through education and giving people powers over their own bodies and future. Without old men telling them that there's an invisible creature that wants them to make more babies, and that they can't get pensions to live on, but if they squeeze out a few more babies, surely they will be taken care of if they grow old...
Starvation and overpopulation goes hand in hand. Higher production and better distribution of food only enables the poor to increase population growth, pushing back the problem to the future, where it will be even worse due to more people.
And higher production of just some kinds of food means even more lack of variety among the poor, who have to eat what is available and cheapest. That's not a good recipe for better lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite part (Score:5, Funny)
I liked the part of the report which stated that people who eat GMO foods are better looking, make more money, and have sex with supermodels far more often than their non-GMO-eating counterparts.
oh,oh,oh (Score:2)
GMO/GW science fiction (Score:3)
Oh, "Crops", not "Cops" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I first read this as "Genetically Modified Cops Are Safe, Report Says", which would have made for a much more interesting article.
Same here.
I figured they couldn't be much more dangerous than regular cops.
Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
So they've determined that selling GMO plants doesn't lead to increased monopoly control over the food supply?
That's my primary objection. I'm hard to convince on the other points, but I know myself well enough to realize that this is mainly because nothing has altered my main grounds for opposition: monopoly control over the food supply. I could be convinced that chemical pesticides are safe...it would take better evidence than I've seen, but it could be done. However this wouldn't change my opposition to GMO foods unless it could be shown that they didn't lead to increased monopoly control.
We have a new Term! (Score:2)
Can we extend the definition of "astro-turfing" to this kind of thing?
It rings true on several levels.
According to... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This from their website:
"The federal government funds about 85 percent of our work. The rest is funded internally or by foundations."
So I guess the question is, do you trust the federal government and/or foundations to not be largely controlled by or at least primarily motivated to protect the interests of Monsanto et al?
Given that we grow so much corn that we literally have to find new ways to use it,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/... [usda.gov]
yet massive federal corn subsidies are still in place,
https://farm [ewg.org]
Come on... (Score:5, Interesting)
Glyphosate, a consequence of GMO modified crops is in people's urine and mothers milk, worst of all in BEER!!!!
And it has "probably" no effect on human's health, not even thinking about the whole soup of endocrine disruptors messing up our bodies or the compound effect of all the goodies additions feeding us so well taken together.
Interesting the timings of those - does no harm - reports coming out - Glyphosate is due for renewal in the EU in July (or so).
When was this trans-fat goodie discovered and put to use? 1800's, right and how long did it take to show adverse effects recognized and get it shut down?
Building blocks of DNA (what they are using to spice the crop's DNA is probably a secret) are swapped between organisms and that process is far from fully researched.
Round-Up-Ready DNA is taken in by weeds and yoii, are they putting it to use. Next is stronger and more complex poisons...
The underlying issues - profit and growth the only criteria, unlimited population growth in a limited environment is too hot a potato to be touched by a politician dependent on "sponsors", if it's even recognized by those conditioned brains convinced that all is OK, gods will or things are just not true...
All-together, just one big Yuck! Fish are dying - can't breath any more.... no more "thanks for all the fish"...
Re:Come on... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is completely missing the point. In March 2015 the IARC (Internation Agency for Research on Cancer) reclassified Glyphosate as "probably causes cancer in humans". Ever since then there has been a constant bombardment of pro-GMO and anti-anti-GMO articles popping up.
Re: (Score:2)
>Interesting the timings of those - does no harm - reports coming out - Glyphosate is due for renewal in the EU in July (or so).
This is completely missing the point. In March 2015 the IARC (Internation Agency for Research on Cancer) reclassified Glyphosate as "probably causes cancer in humans". Ever since then there has been a constant bombardment of pro-GMO and anti-anti-GMO articles popping up.
You are not up-to-date on this, that's not just "an article" of "many" going for and against :
https://translate.google.com/t... [google.com]
The 18-member working group called Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues, short JMPR had met from 9 to 13 on May WHO headquarters in Geneva. The experts took this no own experiments, but evaluated from available data.
The results are in a six-page summary to find the meeting. They confirm the core an earlier assessment of the European Food Safety Authority food safety (EFSA). Here one
Re: (Score:2)
I think this was meant to be an analogy to how long regulation takes, but I'm not sure.
>Glyphosate, a consequence of GMO modified crops
Perhaps the proliferation of glyphosate is the result of GM crops.
>Glyphosate is due for renewal in the EU in July (or so).
What about patents on the genes that make roundup so useful? What about patents on methods of production? When patents expire companies just built a box out of related paten
Lets Try This! (Score:2)
The big issue is economic control (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry so much about the safety of GMO food, but the "intellectual property" bullshit involved. What could be the consequences of giving certain few corporations so much power over something as essential as a country's food supply? That's just insane.
GMO crops are safe say biotech companies (Score:2)
Uh-huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists swore for decades that smoking was safe, until it was proven otherwise.
Scientists swore that thalidomide was safe, until it was proven otherwise.
Scientists swore that fen-phen was safe, until it was proven otherwise.
The list goes on and on. This is just a sample: http://prescriptiondrugs.proco... [procon.org]
So forgive me if I don't trust the "scientists". Do I believe that GMO in inherently bad? Of course not. It's simply a method. It's how that method is used that concerns me. When it's done for profit, then I am highly suspect of its safety. When it's done for strictly humanitarian reasons with no profits involved I'd be much more willing to be open to it.
Our history is rife with companies that would poison their own mothers if they could make a buck from it.
Re:Brace for shill accusations in (Score:4, Insightful)
3... 2... 1...
Do they say who financed the report ? Who are the scientists that wrote the report ? Full disclosure guys, full disclosure.
If it ends up being financed by Monsanto or written by scientists financed by big agro double lol.
Go to the website and do your own research.
"And Gould said all the vested interests are revealed on the website. "They can look to see if something we reference is funded by industry," he said.
It's from the National Academy of sciences, so you are in denialist class denial if you don't give it some credence.
Re:Brace for shill accusations in (Score:5, Insightful)
It's from the National Academy of sciences, so you are in denialist class denial if you don't give it some credence.
I've been over this with the anti-GMO crowd before. There are actually a lot of organizations, ranging from government to nonprofit organizations, that are very much in favor of GMO technology. However each time you list one of them, the anti-GMO crowd comes up with some excuse as for why they're not trustworthy. Here's a list I can name off of the top of my head:
World Health Organization
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
U.S. Academy of Sciences
American Medical Association
American Heart Association (Nifty little tidbit I might add: http://newsroom.heart.org/news... [heart.org] but don't let any anti-GMO people see this or else they'll think the AHA is in on the Monsanto conspiracy as well.)
Girl Scouts of America
The last one in that list is particularly interesting. Why? Because they've been the target of change.org petitions and massive parental protest against what is perhaps their biggest source of income: cookies. And yet still they remain steadfast in their opinion that, indeed, GMO is safe.
And you know what? I happen to agree. I also don't have any financial interest in GMO or any other agriculture, nor do I work for one. In fact I actually work for a major non-profit health care provider. I also happen to believe that GMO will eventually completely solve issues like world hunger and foodborne illness, and possibly even chronic disease as well.
Re: Brace for shill accusations in (Score:3, Informative)
Most of those organizations are pro business growth at any cost, that's why they like GMO and fund research to sell it. The farmers of the world that GMO claims to help are so sick of top down reorganization they will not buy it , its that simple. GMO farming is buying into a system you don't control that will ultimately control you. Notice the careful wording about the situations where pests become resistant, that's because its not magic. If you offer a choice to indiginous farmers (without destroying th
Re: Brace for shill accusations in (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of those organizations are pro business growth at any cost, that's why they like GMO and fund research to sell it.
That, dear sir, is one of the most amazing accusations I've heard in a long time. There are some who would say the opposite.
The farmers of the world that GMO claims to help are so sick of top down reorganization they will not buy it , its that simple.
You seem to think that GMO=Monsanto, and throw all GMO under the bus with Roundup ready seeds. That's really unfortunate, and wrong minded.
GMO farming is buying into a system you don't control that will ultimately control you. Notice the careful wording about the situations where pests become resistant, that's because its not magic. If you offer a choice to indiginous farmers (without destroying their land first) they reject it.
And more of the same. GMO foods, even if you don't buy into my idea that given the inherent nature of sexual reproduction, everything is genetic modification, and we've been doing it manually for a long time. But since a lot of people don't understand genetics, we can narrow it to just modern laboratory based manipulation.
So since anti-GMO kooks are all pissed off at Monsanto - which in itself is not a bad idea, given that they are inadvertently breeding some kickass Roundup resistant weeds - they allow their outrage to extend to fruits and vegetables that have been engineered for better nutrition, longer shelf life, and other very positive aspects that make the produced food actually better in all measurable ways than the base food source.
And even when we don't do it in the lab, we've been doing it since we harvested wheat and corn, selecting for the seeds that stayed on the shafts first by accident, and later by cross breeding for desired characteristics.
And just to be certain, we sometimes created things that were bad for us using this method - enter the Lenape potato: http://boingboing.net/2013/03/... [boingboing.net]
So in your hatred for Monsanto, and your apparent wish to throw all GM under the bus because of that, do you now want to freeze all genetics in their present form, so that everything stays exactly the same? REduction to absurdit isn't difficult when the basic premise is absurd to begin with.
Re:Brace for shill accusations in (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of GM crops are significantly more hardy than the original variants. This means that, if they breed true, then they are going to displace all of the originals and you will end up with a homogeneous group, which is then vulnerable to a single parasite/bacterium. Humans already have a dangerous lack of diversity in our food crops (go and look up the WHO's projections on how many millions would starve to death if wheat production were threatened globally) and GM crops are likely to decrease diversity even more.
The second problem is that many of them don't breed true or, indeed, at all. You must keep buying new seeds from the same company, you can't collect your own seed stock. This means that your food supply becomes entirely dependent on a small number of companies. This is less of a problem for the USA, but the EU spends a lot of money subsidising farmers to ensure that we have an independent food supply and making it dependent on seeds bought from the US seems to counter this quite effectively.
Re: (Score:3)
I have two objections to GM crops: biodiversity and lock-in (though they don't both apply to the same crops).
This, this! Not the other alarmist crap, should be the biggest worry with GMO products.
Re: (Score:3)
The second problem is that many of them don't breed true or, indeed, at all. You must keep buying new seeds from the same company, you can't collect your own seed stock.
Better not eat any apples - a natural food that I've been told has a 1 in 10K chance of seeds from any apple of reproducing true.
This means that your food supply becomes entirely dependent on a small number of companies.
And yet the seed catalogs are full of different varieties, including heirloom varieties that will make for kickass results if you are willing to put in the work. No one is forced to buy Roundup ready seeds. Heck, I've only seen a few in my area that do - certainly many farmers have the breeds vintage posted at the edge of their fields, either as the main or in demo fields.
This is less of a problem for the USA, but the EU spends a lot of money subsidising farmers to ensure that we have an independent food supply and making it dependent on seeds bought from the US seems to counter this quite effectively.
I wonde
Re: (Score:3)
The report was done by the National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine which is non-profit research organization. And they posted all of the findings on the Internet along with a summary of the public submitted comments and information on the researchers who created the report. How much more can they disclose? And just because the report may benefit the companies that develop genetically modified crops that doesn't mean the reported findings are false or misleading. In this case you have alrea
Re:Brace for shill accusations in (Score:4, Interesting)
How much more can they disclose?
Disclosure is good but there is more than that to good science: it needs to be independently peer reviewed. Unfortunately they seem to have avoided going the usual peer-reviewed journal route and have arranged their own reviewers themselves which is unusual. I've also never heard of this group before despite being a physicist who worked in the US for a few years.
That's not to say that the science in the report is wrong it's just when a group you have never heard of publishes it's own report without going through a well known and respected peer reviewed journal which is how science is typically published it raises a few red flags of concern. This could have been largely avoided by publishing the report as a peer reviewed paper.
Re: (Score:3)
This wasn't really a study in a journal; it was a synthesis of many published studies into an over 400 page report. Not exactly the sort of thing to be published in your average journal yeah? And you've really never heard of the National Academy of Sciences? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Since the companies are aggro, they may not be so much evil as simply belonging to a hostile faction . . .
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The only POSSIBLE reason you could have for not labeling is that you don't want people to have the ability to make an informed decision.
This is a non-problem, because it is already perfectly legal to label non-GMO food, and thousands of products are already labeled "GMO Free" or "Organic" (which implies non-GMO). Anyone who wants to avoid GMO foods already has the information available to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a non-problem, because it is already perfectly legal to label non-GMO food, and thousands of products are already labeled "GMO Free" or "Organic" (which implies non-GMO). Anyone who wants to avoid GMO foods already has the information available to do so.
Not entirely true. Soy lecithin and corn starch are excluded from the list of GMO ingredients for "USDA Organic". You can have up to 5% of these GMO ingredients and it can still be stamped with "USDA Organic".
And other "organic" marks are not subject to much control at all.
The problem isn't whether those 5% are safe to eat or not, but that I will give money to those who experiment with genetic modifications; something I don't think we are quite ready to do safely yet. Companies that accept a risk for an
Re: (Score:3)
That makes sense since soy lecithin and corn starch don't contain any DNA. It makes no sense to worry about them being GMO, unless you believe in homeopathy.
You miss the point. It's not about whether the product differs, chemically, but that people refuse to reward companies that use GMO. Some of us want the products to be GMO free for ideological reasons, and want to be able to vote with our wallets.
It's like buying furniture that's marked with a "sustainable" mark, but they avoid mentioning that the lacquer and glues were made from unsustainable sources because the lacquer and glue is chemically identical.
Or produce marked as "locally grown". If it's mixe
Re:Stop debating and label it already! (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans selecting for specific genes through breeding is not the same thing as genetic modification any more than predators putting selective pressure on a population is—unless, of course, you can show me how I would naturally cause a frog to mate with a corn stalk and produce interesting results.
The thing is, saying that GMO foods are "safe" is nonsensical. That's like saying that cars are safe. That can be true for every car built today, and then someone can resurrect the Pinto design or whatever. The problem with GMO foods is not that they aren't safe, but rather that companies are arbitrarily mucking with genes in ways that we don't fully understand, with results that we don't fully understand, then unleashing them on an unsuspecting public with little or no scientific testing. So the products today might be safe, but the next product might be a disaster waiting to happen, and we might not even know about the damage until suddenly there's a huge uptick in colon cancer rates or heart disease or breast cancer after thirty years that correlates with areas where they consumed a particular GMO crop.
IMO, the public has a right to know when they're part of a giant science experiment, and that's what this is. Any claims to the contrary are disingenuous at best. People have a right to obtain the information required to judge the risks themselves, and to make decisions based on that judgment. Hiding that information prevents them from making an informed decision.
Re: Stop debating and label it already! (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude artificial selection and hybridization is also doing things we don't fully understand. It's not throwing gens around haphazardly scientific understanding about biology and genetics is quite advanced. That aside, we don't understand the laws of physics fully, yet we build bridges based on mechanics. The Romans built the aqueducts using granite without even understanding the atomic theory. Just because something may present an unknown risk doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. What if Queen Isabella of Spain
Re: Stop debating and label it already! (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that we've practiced some form of artificial selection for centuries, it is pretty much safe to say that crossing two organisms that produce edible food will almost invariably result in a new organism that produces edible food. Most of the things that we don't know are ecological, e.g. the risks of creating a monoculture that is susceptible to a specific disease that doesn't exist yet. Those issues are certainly cause for concern, but they're unlikely to be a health issue.
By contrast, when manually editing genes, it wouldn't be entirely implausible for someone to accidentally slip a recessive gene sequence into an apple tree seed that, when present in both chromosomes, would cause the production of cyanide. And then in the second generation that isn't supposed to exist, suddenly you have fruit that look normal, but kill people....
Look, I'm not saying that GMO foods are bad, or that they don't provide significant benefits for humanity, particularly when it comes to creating drought-resistant crops that can survive in areas affected by famine, etc. What I'm saying is that no one has the right to force someone else to take unknown risks without that person's knowledge or consent, and deliberately unlabeled GMO foods do just that.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, those vaccines are required by law to identify whether they contain Thiomersal/thimerosal, though there are some sticky edge cases. And if you ask the doctor and the doctor lies to you, that's probably legally actionable.
Re: (Score:2)
And how exactly is resistance to a GMO-produced toxin different from creating resistance to spray-applied pesticides?
In the case of GMOs internally creating Bt toxin, there is no chance of overspray, or spraying too many times, or the spray getting into the groundwater. Not so with a tractor dragging a tank of Tristar around a field. By that definition, GMOs cause far less harm than sprayed pesticides.
If there is an argument about "harm" here, it should be on whether or not pesticides should be legal. It
Re: follow the money (Score:2)
How does a GMO crop cause cancer? We know that tobacco has carcinogenic chemicals too numerous to list that induce mutations.
There is no science to backup any claims about GMO foods causing cancer or any other disease. Most of you GMO nuts refuse to learn anything about genetics, proteins, or molecular biology.
Re: Intellectual Consistency (Score:2, Interesting)
Really I have never seen that. Usually the antiGMO freaks I have encountered are anti vaccine too. I haven't done am proper survey though.
Re: Fake study propaganda (Score:2)
Where's that study so we can critique it?
Re: You can't say that. (Score:2)
It's impossible to say walking outside is safe. A meteorite might hit you or a bird may sh*t on your face.
Re: Interesting, just watch now... (Score:2)
Find me some anti-GMO scientists. Cigarettes are vey different than GMO. The clear scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. Saying GMO is unsafe is like saying your toaster caught on fire therefore all electronics and the benefits they provide should be banned. We should stop acting like GMO is a big deal -- they have been around for years and if they presented a risk magically it would be documented. We know *how* tobacco causes cancer. There are known carcinogenic chemicals in tobacco smoke. For the mo
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the above post was downmodded so fast proves that Monsanto did 9/11.