GMO: Harmful or Helpful

[midgnostic]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

So you have nothing. Deductive reasoning isn't strong enough. I could deduce that ice cream causes murder in the summertime because the sales of ice cream and murders rise in the summertime.

In which case you would have confused correlation with causation, but then evidence cannot prevent you from doing that unless you introduce controls - which is much of my complaint against GMOs. Without observing the effects of GMOs over a long period of time in isolation there can be no assurance of their safety. The burden of proof shouldn't be on the consumer, who as you correctly deduce only has their opinion to rely on. I don't necessarily question the ethics of GMO proponents, more their ability to envisage all possible consequences given their narrow field of expertise.

[DanieMarie]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

But many GMOs have been around for long enough to observe effects. On top of that, if we needed to wait decades to observe long-term health effects on a general population of humans, we wouldn't have any medical process at all.

I like the approach to this thread. There are too many generalizations on both sides and far too much scare info out there.

Personally, I'm going to take the EU's stance and say that GMOs should be reviewed on a case by case basis that include a variety of effects (which are often localized....one policy for one region will not necessarily work out for another region...different ecosystems are different and a threat to biodiversity on one place is not a threat to biodiversity in another). I'll refer back to the links I posted in terms of the EU, which shouldn't necessarily sway anyone about the state of things in the US, as that is a different environment (although I think some GMOs may be banned for health reasons).

I'm interested in what Thal has to say.

[ChainLightning]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

This is kind of an old one, for me.



I spent days doing deep research on this, during one of my brief disappearances around here. I found a great deal of information both for and against. The biggest thing that I found, though, was that nobody agreed on anything, whatsoever. For every study that has taken place, there is someone, somewhere, attempting to negate the results - whether by popular opinion, misinformation, other studies... just propaganda, as far as I'm concerned. All the texts I could find did not help me, one way or the other.

Seriously. I found one report that detailed Monsanto's own involvement in the oversight and legalization of GMO foods, including fake store fronts, members of various boards also being on Monsanto's payroll, you name it. Bullshit. I found a study by some consumer watch group (supposedly, that is), that detailed the science of introducing non-native genes into plants that would never, ever have developed on their own, would seriously destroy genetic diversity and, in fact, increase the risks of complete crop failures, not just locally but world-wide. Another bullshit summary, plain as day. There was a pamphlet, that I was able to download, that addressed each concern, or worry, that people have about modern GMO's (which also happened to include the history of selective breeding, and spelled out the actual difference between modern GMOs and selective breeding, as they are not always the same thing) with a lengthy explanation of risks versus return/reward.

In the end, it is almost completely impossible to get a real sense of who is telling it straight. Are certain GMO foods being nefariously approved by government commissions, that are actually funded by GMO corporations? Doubtful. Will GMO foods save the world's overpopulation troubles, over the next 50 years and beyond? Doubtful. Will we find, some years down the road, that the engineering that went into the latest GMO plant has inadvertently corrupted so many species that there will be no hope of maintaining that particular food supply? Heh, doubtful.

My only advice, after all the nightmares I went through, myself, digging through so much bullshit, is take any claim with a grain of salt. What is really good for you, today, may turn out not-so-good decades from now - and, it may not. We won't know until we get there. That is to say, I'm on board with Rae'ya, Danie, TS and all. We have to go by what we know (regardless of how contradictory it may be). We know herbicides and pesticides are not healthy for you. We know that we have to depend on corporate farming to sustain the masses¹. We know that there is HUGE amounts of money at stake, as well as countless lives. That's more than enough - there is no point worrying about what we can't know, yet.

Are [modern] GMO's good? Yes.
Are [modern] GMO's bad? Yes.

But so is tap water, bottled water,and whatnot, that can't even BE genetically altered. Trace minerals and elements in mundane places, that can² do bad things. Just like most everything else. Risk versus reward. A little bit of risk is worth staying alive and well for another few weeks.

*shrug




**Edit: My apologies.
1.) That should have read "sustain the masses", not "the massed".
2.) Also, "trace minerals and elements" that CAN do bad things

[Bjorn]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

What do ya'll think? Is evidence of GMO being suppressed? I see so much on each side and am still filtering through articles (forgive me for being slow)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

[ChainLightning]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

For further perusal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/unapproved-genetically-modified-wheat-from-monsanto-found-in-oregon-field/2013/05/30/93fe7abe-c95e-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_story.html

Note the mention of GM Salmon.

[nbdy]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

Hybridization and genetic modification are absolutely not the same thing. Hybridization is natural recombination, genetic modification is not. A pig and a tomato do not mate unless they get some help in the lab. A manufactured pesticide is not going to naturally insert itself into a corn gene without lab help no matter how many generations we wait. To assert that the natural combination of genes is the same as genetic modification in a lab is alarmingly ignorant.

The idea that GMOs serve to increase yields is not supported by longitudinal field research. Two recently published studies, one University of Canterbury and one University of Wisconsin, suggest that yields actually were lower using GM crops. The University of Wisconsin study was USDA spanning 20 years. Could have heard a pin drop. This is not what they expected to find. Turns out that the company-run field studies were typically about 90 days under optimal conditions.

Setting aside the issue of product safety, there are other aspects to this technology to consider. A very big one for me is whether life should be subject to patenting -- is it really possible to own life? This feels like a legal fiction to me, and I am not alone. A letter signed by hundreds of world scientists states that patents on life-forms "threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals."

I know at least some people at this forum are aware of the many lawsuits involvng farmers who had a patented life-form in their fields without permission. The company said it was theft and the farmers say they are just saving seeds like they always have and it isn't their fault if the GM crop next door pollinated it. One organic farmer lost years of work as well as his certification through no fault of his own, but the company won and did not have to pay restitution.

And how about those superweeds? Rather than a reduction in chemical use, GM crops allow the plant to survive applications the would kill a "regular" plant. How much of that is still on the food when it hits your plate? And how much more toxic is the herbicide being used with the advent of the superweeds? Where do you think all this herbicide runoff goes? Oh, yeah, the water supply. What happens when tons of herbicide wash into the streams, rivers, and lakes? Oh, yeah, it keeps killing plants.

Somewhere between the tons of nitrogen and phosphorous that is dumped on the monocultural fields that actually need a good crop rotation and the tons of herbicides that are subsequently dumped on those field we have massive eutrophication of our waters. Look up "dead zones" if you haven't heard about this, or if you want to get very edgy look up "deformed amphibians" and then pretend this is all healthy and good.

So while GM technology may not be the end of life as we know it, it isn't a very promising candidate for our salvation either. Perhaps that is why Monsanto has turned its attention to good old-fashioned hybridization. Maybe they know something. Gah! I can't believe I just put that much energy into this thing. *huff*

[DanieMarie]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

I am -absolutely- against patenting seeds. I think this practice should never be allowed.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

I am -absolutely- against patenting seeds. I think this practice should never be allowed.

The problem with this point of view is that it removes the economic incentive to breed new plant varieties.

Case in point: Ephraim Wales Bull developed the Concord grape. The Concord grape is the single most important grape variety in the world - used for grape jelly and grape juice.

He planted somewhere around 22,000 seedlings in his quest for the perfect grape, and devoted many years of his life to it.

When he was ready, he sold cuttings for $1000 each (in 1853 this was a hell of a lot of money), but he died destitute because, without a patent on the Concord, others simply took cuttings from his original cuttings, and way, way undersold him. They didn't do the work, so ANY money they made was pure profit.

Inscribed on Ephram's tombstone is "He sowed - others reaped."

Doesn't quite seem fair, does it?

[Roknrol]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

Huh. Doesn't that mean that when it finally does get done (probably not "right now", if money isn't involved), that it'll be done with far more thought and care for the final outcome rather than what we have now? (a money grubbing scramble to bottom)

I know, I know...I'm an idealist.

[DanieMarie]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

The problem with this point of view is that it removes the economic incentive to breed new plant varieties.

Case in point: Ephraim Wales Bull developed the Concord grape. The Concord grape is the single most important grape variety in the world - used for grape jelly and grape juice.

He planted somewhere around 22,000 seedlings in his quest for the perfect grape, and devoted many years of his life to it.

When he was ready, he sold cuttings for $1000 each (in 1853 this was a hell of a lot of money), but he died destitute because, without a patent on the Concord, others simply took cuttings from his original cuttings, and way, way undersold him. They didn't do the work, so ANY money they made was pure profit.

Inscribed on Ephram's tombstone is "He sowed - others reaped."

Doesn't quite seem fair, does it?

It doesn't, but the problem with patenting seeds is that it is absolutely something that cannot be controlled. No matter what happens, those plants can spread, breed, and mix with existing plants in any given environment. Placing patents on them places people in patent infringement for things they have absolutely no control over. It's not the same as copying a product design, unless that product design can get spread by the wind and animals and mix with existing product designs.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

Reply to Rok -

Develope new disease resistant-drought resistant-highly nutricious-tasty varieties of plant in a for profit scheme, and you create jobs and wealth, but a company can maintain a stranglehold over the product.

Expect the gooberment to finance it, and you may or may not get anything, it will take longer, and will end up costing far more because a gooberment, with a monopoly on production, has no incentive to control costs. They get more cash when they want it by sucking money from their populations, and they inevitably engage in pork belly politics.

Wait for somebody to do it out of the goodness of their saintly heart, at personal expense, with no intent to gain, and it may or may not ever happen.

Pick your poison.

Reply to DanieMarie:

See above.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

[DanieMarie]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

I don't believe farming as a large-scale profit-making industry is healthy for the environment or food distribution, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

I don't believe farming as a large-scale profit-making industry is healthy for the environment or food distribution, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask.

Okey-dokey.

[Rhaethe]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

The problem with this point of view is that it removes the economic incentive to breed new plant varieties.

Case in point: Ephraim Wales Bull developed the Concord grape. The Concord grape is the single most important grape variety in the world - used for grape jelly and grape juice.

He planted somewhere around 22,000 seedlings in his quest for the perfect grape, and devoted many years of his life to it.

When he was ready, he sold cuttings for $1000 each (in 1853 this was a hell of a lot of money), but he died destitute because, without a patent on the Concord, others simply took cuttings from his original cuttings, and way, way undersold him. They didn't do the work, so ANY money they made was pure profit.

Inscribed on Ephram's tombstone is "He sowed - others reaped."

Doesn't quite seem fair, does it?

Point of historical order. Bell took 10 years to develop that specific grape. 1843-1853. He wasn't aiming for it to be the super-grape that it is now .. just frost resistant so that New England areas could grow it. So. Let us assume that the man did absolutely nothing over that 10 year time period but tend to those grapes 6 days a week. In 1856, there was a whole fuss about what Buchanan had said about what was "enough" for a "workingman wage". Ten cents. Lets triple that for a uniquely and highly skilled person, just for the sake of argument. So, for 10 years of uniquely and highly skilled labor such as developing a super-grape ... he should have earned $864 net for the entire 10 years. Now, again, truth to be told, he didn't sell each vine for $1000. He sold each vine for $5 per during the first year, receiving a total of $3,200 in net income, and almost nothing thereafter. He profited almost 3 times that what he should have received as a uniquely skilled laborer, which was again triple that what the average workingman received (or hoped to receive).

Bull didn't die broke and destitute because he couldn't patent his grape. He died broke and destitute because the money that he received was managed poorly.

And all of the above is assuming that he intentionally developed Concord out of a desire to profit and make money. He did not. Instead, he developed grapes (Concord wasn't the only one) out of love of viticulture and gave the sheer majority of his "stock" to the commercial nurseries to distribute as they saw fit, though he could very well have negotiated royalties if he so chose.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

Well.

It seems as if the info I got from the Concord Grape Grower's association website isn't the same as the info I'm getting from Rhaethe.

No matter...

Same question - what alternative do you suggest?

- - - Updated - - -

Well.

It seems as if the info I got from the Concord Grape Grower's association website isn't the same as the info I'm getting from Rhaethe.

No matter...

Same question - what alternative do you suggest?

- - - Updated - - -

Well.

It seems as if the info I got from the Concord Grape Grower's association website isn't the same as the info I'm getting from Rhaethe.

No matter...

Same question - what alternative do you suggest?

- - - Updated - - -

Well.

It seems as if the info I got from the Concord Grape Grower's association website isn't the same as the info I'm getting from Rhaethe.

No matter...

Same question - what alternative do you suggest?

- - - Updated - - -

Well.

It seems as if the info I got from the Concord Grape Grower's association website isn't the same as the info I'm getting from Rhaethe.

No matter...

Same question - what alternative do you suggest?