GMOs May Feed the World Using Fewer Pesticides

[GiantEvil]

Add on edit; Here is a repetitive example of why any non native species introduction is not necessarily reversable; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species

 

I agree, political alignment is rarely based on a reasonable assessment.

One of the main problems here is the presence of for and against camps, and a dearth of careful consideration of consequence.

Fear is after all a useful genetic adaptation and doesn't necessarily imply incorrectness.

I like what this article has to say; http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/genetically-modified-foods-what-is-and-isnt-true/2013/10/15/40e4fd58-3132-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

 

 

So let me suggest a simple impartiality test: Does the person or organization you trust admit to both risks and benefits? If not, chances are good that your source has a dog — financial or ideological — in the fight.

Edited December 2, 2013 by GiantEvil

[iNow]

I'm struggling a bit with your point that seems to conflate GMO crops with "invasive species."

 

Making GMO crops that are harder to kill or expunge than "traditional" crops, to me, is just another possibility along the spectrum of things that could one day happen. At present, however, I don't see any empirical evidence yet to support that it IS happening or WILL happen any time soon, so I find myself tending to toss that too into the "fear-based objections" bin.

 

Yes, fear can be a useful adaptation, but false positives and paralysis from fear tend not to be, especially in this context about potential methods to successfully feed our species and minimize use of fertilizers while doing so.

Edited December 2, 2013 by iNow

[GiantEvil]

Unless a crop species is a "mule" incapable of reproduction or incapable of survival outside intentional cultivation, then once introduced to an environment that species will continue to reproduce until intentionally eradicated. Do crops stray from their fields? I don't know. I suppose I should do a little research. Just as I cant say "definitely will", you can't say "definitely will not". Non modified stocks of a crop species could also be unintentionally pollinated by the GM version. From your own reference in post #24 it is unknown whether or not transgenes have spread to native Mexican maize.

 

Use less fertilizer. What GMO does that? I know Monsanto has engineered corn to be resistant to their own brands of pesticides.

It seems that pesticide use has gone up in conjunction with GMO use; http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

According to your own reference in post #24 it is true that "superweeds" have appeared in conjunction with GM crops.

 

 

Snakes are a good GMO metaphor. Some people hate and fear all snakes regardless, which is a shame. Rat snakes are unobtrusive and useful. Some people might be inclined to go handle just any old snake whatsoever, which is a good way to get envenomated. GMO is in and of itself merely a label, like the word "snake", and not indicative of either harmfulness or safety.

 

All of that aside, current GMO's have not been found to be directly harmful to consumers. So telling people they are just scared and ignorant is probably a good PR campaign. And while you are at it, blatantly spend millions to defeat regulation and labeling efforts, that looks good. Be sure to not mention the ONE GMO ever developed as a non profit humanitarian effort; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice. Because profit motives are distinctly trustworthy, and the only reason every other GMO in existence has been developed.

[iNow]

Use less fertilizer. What GMO does that?

See the article in the OP. One example is potatoes.

 

All of that aside, current GMO's have not been found to be directly harmful to consumers. So telling people they are just scared and ignorant is probably a good PR campaign. And while you are at it, blatantly spend millions to defeat regulation and labeling efforts, that looks good.

As I said above more than once, show me some evidence that they are dangerous to humans or detrimental to our health and I will take these objections more seriously. Until then, I see amazing parallels between the GMO opposition and the anti-vax movement suggesting vaccines lead to autism despite the lack of evidence for that. Edited December 2, 2013 by iNow

[overtone]

 

 

. Why can't farmers simply revert back to non-GMO seeds in future planting cycles if they desire to do so?

They would need 1) a source of equivalent quality non-engineered seeds. 2) protection from lawsuits in case of stray genetic crossover, volunteers, etc (and some way of handling them) 3) ready availability of the machinery etc necessary for the altered cultivation regime 4) infrastructural support to replace anything (such as fertilizer availability and cost) that was part of the GM contract 5) financing for this, probably from a source not beholden to the GMO supplier.

 

Every problem there is currently afflicting, for example, US soybean farmers who attempt to switch out of engineered soybeans for the export markets - or even simply refuse to sign on to an engineered seed regime in the first place, and merely stick with what they are doing. And of course the US farmer has far more resources and standing than any of the third world farmers currently signing up for Monsanto's et al programs. Those guys are not going to be able to change their minds, turn to other forms of modern agriculture, without serious political effort.

 

And forget such formerly attractive possibilities as modern researched and bred (even engineered!) high quality seeds that could be saved and planted and so forth in a food-secure, non-dependent agricultural economy - they are not compatible with Monsanto's agenda.

 

 

 

Making GMO crops that are harder to kill or expunge than "traditional" crops, to me, is just another possibility along the spectrum of things that could one day happen. At present, however, I don't see any empirical evidence yet to support that it IS happening or WILL happen any time soon, so I find myself tending to toss that too into the "fear-based objections" bin

Dismissing the sober predictions and assessments based on a hundred years of research into Darwinian evolution and theoretical advances therefrom as so much undemonstrated fearmongering seems a bit rash, to me.

 

And why do you ignore the obvious indications of what the future holds visible in the dozens of weeds, insects, feral crops, diseases, and so forth, already picking up or benefiting from all of the few genetic modifications marketed widely enough to produce such blowback? Why aren't they "empirical evidence"?

 

 

 

The argument of 'how many people MAY die from GMO' is sorely lacking. Not only because it is speculative, but it ignores the problem of how many people ARE dying due to lack of certain nutrients their normal diet does not adequately contain, but can be resolved through modification. Or how many people are dying from increased yields they could be produced.

One of the really odd features of this discussion is the prevalence of people arguing that the harms of GM crops, which we see in progress and physical reality, are "speculative" and "unscientific",

 

but all these benefits of increased nutrients, increased yield, etc, which have yet to materialilze anywhere as a direct result of any actually marketed GMO, are "real" and "scientific".

 

So far, the yield hit from the engineering in the actually marketed GM crops seems to run about 5% - little of the relevant research is available outside the private corporations funding it, so that is an educated guess. The nutrient content is suspected to be taking a hit as well, but that is even less researched and more litigated - the corporations involved have established in court that no nutritional difference of any kind can be claimed by non-GM food producers, regardless of example or circumstance. Part of the problem seems to be separating the effects of the cultivation regime - the heavy herbicide applications correlated with GM seeds apparently affect nutrient availability in the soil.

[iNow]

They would need 1) a source of equivalent quality non-engineered seeds. 2) protection from lawsuits in case of stray genetic crossover, volunteers, etc (and some way of handling them) 3) ready availability of the machinery etc necessary for the altered cultivation regime 4) infrastructural support to replace anything (such as fertilizer availability and cost) that was part of the GM contract 5) financing for this, probably from a source not beholden to the GMO supplier.

1 - They have this already today. That would not change.

2 - Fair enough, but hardly a reason we couldn't revert back to non-GMO seeds as needed

3 - One would imagine they have this if they planted the GMO seeds in the first place

4 - See #1 and #3 above. They are farmers who plant seeds every year. This should be taken as given.

5 - Same as #1

 

I think your only legitimate answer here is that they might get sued if they stop planting GMO crops and start planting traditional seeds again since there may be cross-pollination. Let it happen, and take it to the courts. They can still start planting traditional seeds as soon as they want if they decide the GMOs are not their preference. I was asking what technical barrier would stand in the way of us deciding not to use GMOs in the future if we choose not to do so. As I suspected, you're not able to provide any of substance.

 

And forget such formerly attractive possibilities as modern researched and bred (even engineered!) high quality seeds that could be saved and planted and so forth in a food-secure, non-dependent agricultural economy - they are not compatible with Monsanto's agenda.

Again, I'm talking about the technology itself, not the corporations that deliver them. Monsanto is, IMO, entirely peripheral from what I'm here discussing.

 

 

why do you ignore the obvious indications of what the future holds visible in the dozens of weeds, insects, feral crops, diseases, and so forth, already picking up or benefiting from all of the few genetic modifications marketed widely enough to produce such blowback? Why aren't they "empirical evidence"?

Because those same problems already exist today with our use of fertilizers. It's not a new problem that comes from GMOs in the way you suggest.

 

One of the really odd features of this discussion is the prevalence of people arguing that the harms of GM crops, which we see in progress and physical reality, are "speculative" and "unscientific",

Yep, I'm still waiting for you to cite that evidence of it being harmful to humans, toxic or dangerous to our well-being. This is what, my sixth request now in this very thread? The other "harms" you point to are speculative and... yep, you guessed it... fear-based.

 

So far, the yield hit from the engineering in the actually marketed GM crops seems to run about 5% - little of the relevant research is available outside the private corporations funding it, so that is an educated guess.

Citation please? I would like to see how the yield difference was proven to result from the seed being GMO and are not due to something more likely such as drought or warmer temperatures or insects/locusts, etc. You've asserted more than once now that GMOs reduce yields. I'm asking you now to support it with more than mere repetition and hand-waving.

 

The nutrient content is suspected to be taking a hit as well, but that is even less researched and more litigated

Hence, it would seem silly to use that as the foundation of your opposition until evidence comes in to support it is actually true. Edited December 2, 2013 by iNow

[wanabe]

 

Feeding the world isn't a matter of GMO or not, it's about the delivery of the food. Developing countries generally lack the necessary infrastructure to support the amount of food delivery they need. There is plenty of food right now for all the people, the people who need it just cant get it.

It's politics that causes world hunger, not a lack of science.

Relatively good news over all though.

[overtone]

 

 

1 - They have this already today. That would not change.

No, they don't. That is a serious problem - not only are traditional bred seeds being forced out of the market by economics (the Wal Mart effect, the reason I have to order gloves on line from specialty shops at high prices), not only is research and development of such seeds all but eliminated from even the taxpayer-supported land grant universities (starving the future), but Monsanto et al are actively buying up the best of the modern breeds and sequestering them, eliminating the competition.

 

2 - Fair enough, but hardly a reason we couldn't revert back to non-GMO seeds as needed

It would take a ten year million dollar court battle against the most powerful legal team in the world, in some cases, just to get the right to try - and you might not win it. That's in the US. In Zambia, Bangladesh, India, Brazil, no chance.

 

3 - One would imagine they have this if they planted the GMO seeds in the first place

One's imagination would be in error. Imagination in general rarely substitutes for physical reality.

 

4 - See #1 and #3 above. They are farmers who plant seeds every year. This should be taken as given.

Oh good Lord. This is the problem: You guys have no idea what Monsanto is doing, how these GMOs are being deployed, and how they are affecting farming in the real world.

 

5 - Same as #1

And just as cluelessly ignorant here. See #4.

 

 

 

- - - they might get sued if they stop planting GMO crops and start planting traditional seeds again since there may be cross-pollination. Let it happen, and take it to the courts.

This Pollyanna world you have imagined, of even US farmers (let alone the third world victims of the multinational agribusiness agenda) dealing with the money and power of these GMO promulgators as equals in a courtroom or banker's office or legislative assembly, is not reasonable. It's not even close to reasonable. It's bizarre, goofy.

 

 

 

Again, I'm talking about the technology itself, not the corporations that deliver them. Monsanto is, IMO, entirely peripheral from what I'm here discussing.

It is not peripheral to the claims you made just above, about lawsuits, seed availablity, financing, infrastructure, etc. It's central - the big dog. You haven't even introduced the subject of the technology itself, in the few labs where it still exists independent of Monsanto et al.

 

But taking you at your word: Then you have no objection to banning the actual deployments of GMOs in the real world by these peripheral corporations and their peripheral operations, pending a more careful and reasonable evaluation of the side effects and consequences in that peripheral real world.

 

OK, we have an area of partial agreement: That would be more severe than my own preferences, but far more sensible than current developments.

 

 

 

Hence, it would seem silly to use that as the foundation of your opposition until evidence comes in to support it is actually true.

Again this Fox News style approach - simplistic misrepresentations such as "the foundation of opposition" when complex and multiply founded arguments are involved - coupled with a puzzling, completely unscientific, creationist style "proof" take on the nature of "evidence": in a science forum, from technical folks.

 

There is plenty of evidence, for example, that a high application rate of herbicides such as Roundup leads to the binding of mineral nutrients in at least some types of soil - making them less easily available to the plant. There is also good theoretical and evidence based reason to assume that diverting plant resources to the intense expression of alien and complicated code unrelated to nutrition or other growth must be paid for somewhere in the physiology - with micronutrient uptake, especially where unusually expensive (such as bound minerals), a likely arena (since the plant can grow, live, and reproduce under micronutrient shortage).

 

So there is a great deal of evidence available "supporting the actual truth" of these caveats and warnings and considerations. Under such circumstances, the absence of rigorous demonstrations or careful research or even publicly available casual investigation into these matters is not a good thing, not a sign of no problems, not a reason to hand American agriculture over to such poorly investigated and obviously hazardous innovations. The burden of rigorous demonstration should not be placed on those recommending prudence in the face of obvious risk - that makes no sense. The burden of proof rests on the profiteers and marketers, not the people pointing to obvious hazards and problems they seem to be creating and risk turning into disaster.

 

Risks by definition exist prior to knowledge of event.

 

 

 

Yep, I'm still waiting for you to cite that evidence of it being harmful to humans, toxic or dangerous to our well-being.

While we wait, let's not pretend we have it already, right? We have obvious risks and hazards, and dramatically inadequate public research or information about them - so we would be idiots to convert the entirety of American food production to dependence on those risks being unreal, those apparent hazards not actually dangerous. Who would do something as stupid as that under the cover of "science", and label the opposition to such foolhardiness "fear-based"?

 

 

why do you ignore the obvious indications of what the future holds visible in the dozens of weeds, insects, feral crops, diseases, and so forth, already picking up or benefiting from all of the few genetic modifications marketed widely enough to produce such blowback? Why aren't they "empirical evidence"?

Because those same problems already exist today with our use of fertilizers. It's not a new problem that comes from GMOs in the way you suggest.

So we have yet another demonstration of the depths of the ignorance in which GMO promoters live.

 

Pick a couple of major ones: No, the resistance to Bt and glysphophate and so forth currently being bred into dozens of pests by the irresponsible abuse of those valuable resources in GMOs is not a problem that "already exists today" through the use of "fertilizers" (?) or anything else. That abusive and resistance-breeding broadcast deployment is in fact the central property of those particular modifications, the reason they exist, the main "benefit" of them - they replace the spot usage and prudent, non-resistance engendering topical applications with something less expensive in the short run, they present to the surrounding ecosystem not only the necessary evolutionary pressure in its most rapidly effective Darwinian form but the actual genetic modifications necessary in a complex designed for inter-taxon transfer between taxonomic levels not formerly available in the world;

 

they are much, much different than what "already exists today". This stuff is new, radically and powerfully and wonderfully and , yes, hazardously new. Get it through your heads once and for all - nothing like this has existed on this planet since the dawn of life itself. The advance in capability is fundamental.

[iNow]

Listen, I enjoy a good debate, but I do lose interest rapidly when you suggest I'm a propagandist for Monsanto, when you actively assert that I'm cluelessly ignorant, and then proceed to call me pollyannish.

 

You then suggest I'm taking a Fox News style approach akin to a creationist, whereas I think my posts have been entirely reasonable and my points valid, logical, and largely unemotional. Maybe I'm wrong. I acknowledge that, but you should note that telling me to get something "through my head" will likely result in me ignoring you, not in me changing my stance.

 

I have a history of more than 14,000 posts at this site that suggest you may perhaps be too quick to cast me with such labels, and I'd like to point out that your doing so actually adds credence to my comparison of this topic to the anti-vax autism issue.

 

Btw - I'm still waiting to see studies about GMOs causing harm to human health or them being somehow toxic to our well-being.

[overtone]

but I do lose interest rapidly when you suggest I'm a propagandist for Monsanto, when you actively assert that I'm cluelessly ignorant, and then proceed to call me pollyannish

Too bad. Quit posting corporate propaganda and other gnorant nonsense, and I will quit labeling it. How am I supposed to respond to someone who spends half a post making assertions that rest in complete obliviousness to the legal, physical, financial, political, and social situation of even an American soybean farmer (the highest status farmers on earth) attempting to confront Monsanto and Dupont and Dekalb and the like, and the other half declaring all such considerations "peripheral" to whatever argument they thought they were making?

 

It's not as if I started this business of referring to people as emotional, irrational, uninformed, fear-based, equivalent to autism/vaccination paranoids, and so forth - n'est ce pa?

 

 

 

I have a history of more than 14,000 posts at this site that suggest you may perhaps be too quick to cast me with such labels,

I'm not labeling you (and note that transferral is characteristic of the Fox crowd - waddle and quack, you'll be mistaken for a duck now and then) I'm labeling the posts you have right here, and I quoted them so there would be no mistake. The label is not based on your other posting - my expressed puzzlement is based on your other posting. From the standard political crowd of religious creationists and climate denialists and such, this kind of corporate apologia is not puzzling. From normally scientifically literate and competent people, it is.

 

 

Btw - I'm still waiting to see studies about GMOs causing harm to human health or them being somehow toxic to our well-being.

That's because you aren't following the argument. You are instead repeating industry marketing and spin.

 

Rather than waiting for the unavailable while ignoring the piles of worrisome events and indications (the persistence of the genetics on the landscape, the dozens of instances of quickly evolved adaptation, the ease of horizontal transfer, the startling discovery of byproducts released in digesting food, the near misses with lethal allergens, the discovery of ignorance re honeybee troubles, the blackmarket setups in third world countries, etc etc etc etc) you should be providing the data showing the otherwise obvious, apparent, and visible risks to be illusory. That would be the correct direction of argument and burden of proof, to justify wholesale and essentially permanent conversion of US agriculture to dependence on Monsanto et al.

 

The absence of the data you seek, the lack of proper and rigorous investigation to support any conclusion regarding the obvious risks (and even the not so obvious, IMHO, although that is apparently beyond the pale entirely) is an argument against, not for, broadcast GMOs.

Edited December 4, 2013 by overtone

[iNow]

Blah blah... Corporate propaganda... Blah blah... Monsanto... Fox News... Blah blah... religious creationist and global warming denier... blah blah... marketing and spin...

 

You should be providing the data showing the otherwise obvious, apparent, and visible risks to be illusory

Okay, see below, but I'm not saying the risks are illusory. I'm saying that I weigh them differently. In my opinion, they are still mostly speculative and rooted in fear, and the data we DO have suggests GMO crops are safe. I am not trying to demean your position. That's just my assessment. It seems lacking in evidence and that's my opinion. It's okay if you disagree.

 

In the meantime, much of this work has already been done by folks like the World Health Organization:

 

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf

GM foods are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.

Also here from WHO:

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

What are the main issues of concern for human health?

 

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

 

Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

 

Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.

 

Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as outcrossing), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

And this is reinforced by countless others, one example being the Oxford Toxocological journal:

 

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full

The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists.

<snip>

To establish substantial equivalence, extensive comparative studies of the chemical composition, nutritional quality, and levels of potentially toxic components, in both the engineered and conventional crop and animal, are conducted. Notable differences between the existing and new organism would require further evaluation to determine whether the engineered form presents a higher level of risk. Through this approach, the safety of current biotechnology-derived foods can be compared with that of their conventional counterparts, using established and accepted methods of analytical, nutritional, and toxicological research.

 

Studies of this type have established that the level of safety to consumers of current genetically engineered foods is likely to be equivalent to that of traditional foods. At present, no verifiable evidence of adverse health effects of BD foods has been reported.

And the National Academy of Sciences:

 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094

No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.

Or the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

 

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

 

So, seriously, stop acting like I'm here recommending we slaughter human infants with rusty machetes in order to feed them to homeless people or that we use a rotary tool to carve swastikas into the throats of every puppy born. It's tiresome.

 

I've merely come to a different opinion on the weight of the potential risks than you have, and my opinion seems to align with the data available and the conclusions of those scientists who have looked closely at the issue. This is why I want to see some studies from you... something other than speculation and pure logic... before aligning with your position since (as you keep reminding me) this IS a science forum.

Edited December 4, 2013 by iNow

[Ringer]

You do realize that the whole thing about about being sued due to trace stray seeds is a myth right? And even if they did there is precedent that they would owe no money. If you are going to tell others to stop spreading propaganda one would think you should do the same.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

 

See #2

[overtone]

Okay, see below, but I'm not saying the risks are illusory. I'm saying that I weigh them differently

And I'm saying you haven't addressed them at all, let alone "weighed" them. There's no evidence here that you recognize them.

 

I am not trying to demean your position.

Bullshit. "Blah blah... Corporate propaganda... Blah blah... Monsanto... Fox News... Blah blah... religious creationist and global warming denier... blah blah... marketing and spin..."

 

In the meantime, much of this work has already been done by folks like the World Health Organization

No, it hasn't. Take a look:

 

What are the main issues of concern for human health?

 

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

They overlook the near misses on allergens to date, they are not competent to evaluate the likelihood of gene transfer and outcrossing (they rely on industry and industry-dependent sources), and they omit major health issues such as micronutrient shortage, aberrant gene expression, compromised gut flora, sequestered toxins in some plants, increased liability to health impacts from plant diseases and reactions (such as boosted Fusarium fungi prevalence on glysphosphate stressed plants), and so forth. One can sympathize, because they have no data in these matters, but to not mention them? To reassure in ignorance?

 

 

 

And this is reinforced by countless others, one example being the Oxford Toxocological journal:

- -

The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists.

And you accept that? Granted they carefully covered butt, with "available scientific evidence" and "not different in nature", but the entire issue here is the unavailability of adequate research and due diligence, and the fact that these modifications are in some cases - and will be in many more cases - completely unfamiliar to any toxicologist who hasn't studied things like the interactions of squid inflorescence proteins and bacterial antibiotic resistance products with nematode poisons in the human upper intestinal flora, and there are no such toxicologists, is completely obvious.

 

 

 

And the National Academy of Sciences:

- - -

No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.

To repeat: The lack of adequate "documentation" of this stuff (and the fact that what little research has been done is often privately owned and unavailable) is not something from which safety can be inferred.

 

 

 

Or the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Now this is interesting, because they posit a consensus among some scientific organizations for which we have quotes, right here - and these quotes do not say what the AAAS claims for them. Compare.

 

consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques

All the careful butt-covering omitted, nothing there about "available evidence", no restrictions of scope, not even a nod to the fact that those organizations were often referencing each other, rather than independently coming to judgment . And no apparent recognition that the next type of GMO will be a different, separate matter again - that these modifications are all different, there is no category "GMO" that one can study in general and draw overall conclusions about.

 

 

 

So, seriously, stop acting like I'm here recommending we slaughter human infants with rusty machetes in order to feed them to homeless people or that we use a rotary tool to carve swastikas into the throats of every puppy born. It's tiresome.

And then you complain when I label that crap.

Edited December 4, 2013 by overtone

[iNow]

I still see lots of rhetoric and invective, but no evidence or data. I'll repeat the two specific requests made of you since you continue to evade them:

• You said, "GM crops result in 5% reductions in crop yield." I asked for evidence of this claim you've repeated more than once. You have not provided any.
• I've asked for evidence that GM crops are somehow more detrimental to human health and well-being than traditional crops. You have not provided any.

Let's start there, otherwise we'll just continue going around in circles. I've supported the claims I've made with data and evidence. Perhaps you can kindly reciprocate?

[overtone]

I still see lots of rhetoric and invective, but no evidence or data

You have to be following the argument to recognize evidence. You aren't, for some reason.

 

 

 

Let's start there, otherwise we'll just continue going around in circles

Agreed. You drop the rhetoric, and address the issues here, and I don't have to keep repeating the simple, obvious, and plain.

 

Specifically:

 

 

You said, "GM crops result in 5% reductions in crop yield." I asked for evidence of this claim you've repeated more than once. You have not provided any.

I did not say that. I said that what evidence we have, which I have repeatedly and clearly described as inadequate, indicates a yield hit in the general range of 5%.

 

Two points:

 

1) the burden of proof rests on those claiming no yield hit. We have solid theory and simple, direct observation clearly establishing the near certainty of a reduction in yield for any crop into which an expensive and alien complex of genetic code that diverts plant resources from production has been inserted and expressed under environmental pressure - that's just the common sense "no free lunch", "alternatives exclude", etc, principle.

 

Are you claiming no yield hit? If so, produce evidence or argument or something. If not, what actual purpose does your focus on some likely guesstimate such as "5%" serve, in your arguments?

 

Perhaps, as seems indicated, a layman's introduction to the basic issue is in order despite the "scientific" pretentions of this forum? Here's one: http://boingboing.net/2013/03/29/do-gmos-yield-more-food-the-a.html Following the references there - to the UCS, Greenpeace, Paul Voorsen's assessments, Doug Gurian's reports, etc etc etc, can take you to the research eventually.

 

Now that link is not wonderful - the writer is a bit gullible in the face of credentials, and accepted for example Joel Foley's claim that GM crops outperformed comparable nonmodified crops in bad growing conditions in the US, which was - let's say - "misleading" (example: the drought we had a couple years back hit the GM crops harder than the others, including notably the specifically and allegedly drought resistant GMOs), but perhaps another approach to description than my irritated one will enlighten?

 

2) The paucity of evidence in the matter is one of my central observations. In years of admittedly casual and amateur perusal, I have found exactly one research effort into this matter that is both public and soundly designed, that discovery took me more than an hour on the net, and its marginal relevance here renders a similar effort now a waste of my time. References to such effects are common (http://www.greenpeace.org/israel/Global/israel/image/2013/03/GMO%20PDF%20ARTICLES/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%A1%20%D7%92%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA/genetically-engineered-soya-yi.pdf , http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html , ) and reasonably well supported (certainly much better supported than any claim of no yield hit), but the main problem here is the lack of evidence - Monsanto et al do not make their funded research public, and this corporate funded research has come to predominate in the field. That is dangerous, an obvious source of public hazard of many kinds and wide implication.

 

Let's repeat: lack of solid research and public information therefrom is evidence of risk, hazard, danger, etc. It is not evidence of safety, benefit, etc

 

Let's emphasize: when lack of research and data is one of the major observations and an important piece of evidence of irresponsible risk-taking, pointing to a lack of research and data does not counter the argument that risks are being run and hazards created.

 

Or put it this way: This:

 

I've supported the claims I've made with data and evidence

 

is simply false. You haven't. There is no such data presented here, and unless you are arguing from authority no such evidence behind any argument you might be making. Are you arguing from authority? Because I have presented reasons such an argument would be fatally flawed ( a research regime dominated by financial interests, a complex and cross-discipinary field, a shortage of time and lack of famililarity in a new field, etc).

For example in this particular matter: You cannot find a single well-designed and publicly available study demonstrating that the currently promulgated genetic engineering accomplishments increase the harvest yield per acre of their targeted or reasonably comparable organisms under reasonably comparable cultivation regimes. And the burden of evidence is rightly yours, as a promoter of the mass conversion of Western agriculture according to Monsanto's agenda.

 

And that is just one, proabbly relatively minor, issue with these things.

Edited December 4, 2013 by overtone

[iNow]

I said that what evidence we have, which I have repeatedly and clearly described as inadequate, indicates a yield hit in the general range of 5%.

 

Two points:

 

1) the burden of proof rests on those claiming no yield hit.

Except that's NOT my claim. I've not made any claims. I've simply asked you to support with evidence your 5% claim, which you did below.

 

Here's one: http://boingboing.net/2013/03/29/do-gmos-yield-more-food-the-a.html Following the references there - to the UCS, Greenpeace, Paul Voorsen's assessments, Doug Gurian's reports, etc etc etc, can take you to the research eventually.

The piece you've just cited basically says, "Do yields decrease when using GMO crops? Uhmmm... depends on what you mean by yield."

 

...and its marginal relevance here renders a similar effort now a waste of my time.

Listen, you're taking the time to post here and reply. In those posts, you're making claims. One of them was new to me, so I asked you to support it. If you're unwilling to support what you say, then stop saying it.

 

References to such effects are common (http://www.greenpeace.org/israel/Global/israel/image/2013/03/GMO%20PDF%20ARTICLES/מהונדס%20גנטית/genetically-engineered-soya-yi.pdf , http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html , ) and reasonably well supported (certainly much better supported than any claim of no yield hit),

I didn't claim "no yield hit," but thanks for the sources. I see that some version of one of their soy crops saw some impact to yields... and that with corn the "promised INCREASE in yields wasn't seen." That's not a decrease, and seems to depend on how you define "yield," but whatever.

 

It's hardly the strongest case I've ever seen, but I appreciate you giving me something in response to my request.

 

... but the main problem here is the lack of evidence - Monsanto et al do not make their funded research public, and this corporate funded research has come to predominate in the field. That is dangerous, an obvious source of public hazard of many kinds and wide implication.

Tell me again how this is anything other than fear-based speculation?

 

This [claim that you've supported your position] is simply false. You haven't. There is no such data presented here, and unless you are arguing from authority... <snip> You cannot find a single well-designed and publicly available study demonstrating that the currently promulgated genetic engineering accomplishments increase the harvest yield per acre...

Again, not a claim I've made. Not my burden to bear.

[overtone]

The piece you've just cited basically says, "Do yields decrease when using GMO crops? Uhmmm... depends on what you mean by yield."

Is that all you read? In good faith? I'm sorry, but that's not credible.

 

I can't force you to follow an argument, or even marginally improve your comprehension of the issues at hand. But in that event, there's no reason to treat your subsequent posting as relevant to my posts - we can just deal directly with your actual agenda, claims, etc.

 

 

 

Listen, you're taking the time to post here and reply. In those posts, you're making claims. One of them was new to me, so I asked you to support it.

You misread it, misrepresented it, and focused on irrelevance. Repeatedly, even after reasonable and initially even-tempered responses. I believe I've done enough to correct your error here, about my claims.

 

 

 

If you're unwilling to support what you say, then stop saying it.

I am unwilling to chase after your bullshit, beyond ordinary courtesy toward honest mistake. That has been exceeded by a considerable margin.

 

 

 

Again, not a claim I've made

You claimed to have posted data, and evidence. You have not posted data, and nothing is "evidence" except in relationship to an argument. Are you now claiming to have made no argument - to have claimed nothing for which what you posted was "evidence"?

 

 

 

Tell me again how this is anything other than fear-based speculation?

Well, It isn't fear based, and it isn't speculative - it's an observation of incontrovertible fact, which anyone can see for themselves. Whether or not one fears the dangers, hazards, and even potential disasters currently being created and set in motion by the actual methods and circumstances of corporate promulgation of GMOs as we observe them in real life, is a personal choice. I don't, myself - when some of them bite their promoters in the ass, which according to Darwinian theory and ordinary common sense is nearly certain, mockery will be appropriate - unless a lot of people suffer unduly for the greed, negligence, and foolhardiness of others safely distant, as at Fukushima.

 

btw: We read in the papers (New York Times 11/29 B3) that what was to my knowledge the one and only publicly available and reputably published study comparing the lifetime outcomes (in rats) of a diet based on one of the GMOs in commercial production with a diet based on otherwise similar crops, was withdrawn from publication after severe pressure from industry representatives. The ostensible reason was that the number of rats was too small (200 of them, kept for two years - their ordinary lifespan) and too prone to cancer (cancer was not the only event studied, and the difference rather than the absolute rates of incidence were tha data). We are asked to accept that the initial peer review and editorial approval overlooked these details. So now there isn't even the one.

 

No word on whether any of the claims of safety common in the public discourse will be withdrawn, based as they are on no such research whatsoever.

Edited December 5, 2013 by overtone

[iNow]

I can't force you to follow an argument, or even marginally improve your comprehension of the issues at hand...I am unwilling to chase after your bullshit, beyond ordinary courtesy toward honest mistake. That has been exceeded by a considerable margin.

Okay, just stop already. This is not necessary.

 

We've established that you and I have arrived at a different conclusion about the safety of GMO crops. I find your position to be weak, unsupported by evidence, speculative and rooted in fear. You find my position to be blinded by corporate propaganda, pollyannish, to improperly weigh potential risks and dismiss them too quickly.

 

Data suggests GMO crops are no less safe than traditional crops. Data suggests we can reduce the amount of fertilizers we must use to feed our population, and the risks from fertilizers are well understood. There remain concerns about who is driving these activities and what are their motivations, as well as some anxiety about "messing with nature" in this way without certainty about what may come of it in the decades to come.

 

There's not much more to say, I suppose.

[overtone]

Okay, just stop already. This is not necessary.

Something is necessary. You seem unable to even recognize your behavior here.

 

 

Data suggests GMO crops are no less safe than traditional crops

As repeatedly noted, .you have yet to provide any such data, in link or quote or even assertion. I can't find any, on the internet - all the evidence I can find, almost none of which is "data", suggests that the GMOs as currently being deployed are very dangerous. You have not dealt with that evidence, some of which is posted above.

 

 

 

We've established that you and I have arrived at a different conclusion about the safety of GMO crops

A conclusion requires a process of argument. You haven't provided one (unless you regard your evidence-free argument from authority, quoting WHO about genetic transfer and the like, as valid and comprehensive?). The fact that GMO deployers claim to have come to "conclusions" about the safety of GMO crops in general - ->all of them, present and future, in all their wide variety and planetary circumstances <-- is all we need to know about these people's reliability, competence, understanding, and possibly integrity. That's just nonsense, gross absurdity , and they deliver it with a straight face.

 

 

 

I find your position to be weak, unsupported by evidence, speculative and rooted in fear.

No, you don't. That's not a finding, that's an unsupported assertion, badly confused about the meaning of the word "speculation", oblivious to the nature of evidence, and irrelevantly in error as well as gratuitously insulting in its claim of "fear". You have not argued that case, and your consistently mistaken paraphrases and presumptions and directions of argument suggest that you have simply invented the "position" you wish to "find" speculative etc - wtihout an argument, it's hard to tell what you are actually basing that crap on.

 

 

 

Data suggests we can reduce the amount of fertilizers we must use to feed our population, and the risks from fertilizers are well understood.

No such data exists. Some hopeful and suggestive evidence exists, awaiting an argument unavoidably speculative but in my view persuasive, which has not appeared here.

 

You seem to be mistaken about the the nature of fertilizers, btw - none of their risks have been mentioned as yet in this thread, they haven't come up except briefly link-mentioned as potential future benefits from currently nonexistent or lab-restricted GMOs, and no currently marketed GMO reduces the use of them.

 

The recent advances in finding a corn bacterium native to the plant's tissue and capable of being modified to fix nitrogen is very hopeful, but difficulties remain, and getting industrial backing may prove difficult.

 

 

 

There remain concerns about who is driving these activities and what are their motivations,

Also observations of dangerous and irresponsible corporate behavior motivated by greed and benefiting nobody except its profiteers.

 

as well as some anxiety about "messing with nature" in this way without certainty about what may come of it in the decades to come.

Nobody here has exhibited "anxiety" about "messing with nature". The observation that not knowing what the consequences of heedless deployment of these things are or could be - and often even ignoring what apparent consequences are indicated by theory and observed to be in progress - is unsafe in the extreme,that is not a vague anxiety over uncertainty: it's an immediate warning about present and looming hazard, often specifically detailed (such as breeding resistance mechanisms for the valuable pesticide type Bt and the valuable herbicide glyphosate into the landscape).

Edited December 5, 2013 by overtone

[iNow]

show a minimal glimmer of prudence, responsibility, and adult judgment <snip> deaf techies <snip> promulgating your exact line of propaganda. <snip> contrary to your hyperventilating tone <snip> blindly pushing Monsanto's bait and switch <snip> very,bag of hammers, dropped on one's head, lights on nobody home, sawing off the limb you're sitting on, stupid.

Oh good Lord. <snip> And just as cluelessly ignorant here. <snip> This Pollyanna world you have imagined <snip> this Fox News style approach <snip> creationist style "proof" <snip> So we have yet another demonstration of the depths of the ignorance in which GMO promoters live. <snip> Get it through your head

Too bad. Quit posting corporate propaganda and other ignorant nonsense <snip> making assertions that rest in complete obliviousness <snip> repeating industry marketing and spin.

I can't force you to follow an argument, or even marginally improve your comprehension of the issues at hand. <snip> we can just deal directly with your actual agenda <snip> I am unwilling to chase after your bullshit, beyond ordinary courtesy toward honest mistake. That has been exceeded by a considerable margin.

You seem unable to even recognize your behavior here. <snip> all we need to know about these people's reliability, competence, understanding, and possibly integrity. That's just nonsense, gross absurdity , and they deliver it with a straight face. <snip> badly confused <snip> oblivious <snip> it's hard to tell what you are actually basing that crap on.

I have to ask Do you sincerely believe that this type of tone and language and consistent series of personal attacks on me strengthens your argument in any way, shape, or form? It usually suggests the contrary, in my experience. Perhaps if your position is as strong as you suggest it is then you could begin expressing it less emotively and with more objective citations. A blog post and a link to a Greenpeace press release really didn't do it for me.

[Ringer]

If anyone is truly searching for the available information on GMOs then here is a paper that collects and gives an overview of the data. There is also an excel file that has all the studies listed, but I'm not allowed to upload an excel fine to the forum. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

[overtone]

I have to ask Do you sincerely believe that this type of tone and language and consistent series of personal attacks on me strengthens your argument in any way, shape, or form?

Right back atcha - with the difference that you don't actually have an argument to strengthen, as far as is visible here.

 

You have been posting essentially nothing but ad hominem (and I mean that in the technical sense, the logical structure of argument) for the entire thread. I've been quoting bits and pieces, in an attempt to forestall this kind of crap, to no apparent enlightenment.

 

You don't even see that, am I right?

 

 

 

If anyone is truly searching for the available information on GMOs then here is a paper that collects and gives an overview of the data.

Here is a quote from the abstract:

 

The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops;

That isn't true, and my guess is the falsehood is unintentional.

What the guy meant to say, if he was not being deliberately deceptive, is that he thinks the science has detected no direct and significant accomplished harm or damage so far. He's wrong about that, but at least not dishonest or terminally silly.

The collection of the research is possibly valuable, in other words, but the "overview" is apparently confused.

Or maybe not confused, exactly: The other possibility is foreshadowed in this quote from the abstract:

 

We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide.

That doesn't sound good, does it. There is no "scientific consensus" on the large, varied, and quickly changing question of the "safety" of GE crops. There is no such thing, realistically - each new engineered crop, deployment procedure, economic situation, end usage of product, and ecological context is a different safety question. A "consensus" on glyphosate resistant soybeans in Kansas would not apply to Bt expressing cotton in Bangladesh - if such a consensus existed in the first place, which it does not.

So somebody - and it sure won't be any of the self-described "scientific" folks here - has to plow through that "selected" pile of papers, and see what's up. Until then, of course, no conclusions relevant to the thread can be drawn, except that some Italian guy with credentials thinks GMOs have checked out as benign so far - right? You do see that, I hope?

 

 

btw: This confusion of risk and hazard with accomplished harm appears to be a result of an organized campaign of media framing of the issue, an interesting example of the effects of media propaganda on the language and discourse of even apparently technical fields. On this thread, discussion of observed areas of serious risk is called "speculation", and like a falling man passing the tenth floor, we are supposed to accept as legitimate, valid "position" the conclusion that if no disaster has been confirmed to have struck then there are no evidences of trouble or observable areas of danger and hazard for us to consider. It sounds goofy when put like that, but reread this thread - there it is.

Edited December 5, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

"Right back atcha - with the difference that you don't actually have an argument to strengthen, as far as is visible here."

Nope, his argument is perfectly visible.

 

 

You say "That isn't true, and my guess is the falsehood is unintentional. "

re "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops;"

 

Please show me the scientific evidence of harm done.

[Moontanman]

 

Right back atcha - with the difference that you don't actually have an argument to strengthen, as far as is visible here.

 

You have been posting essentially nothing but ad hominem (and I mean that in the technical sense, the logical structure of argument) for the entire thread. I've been quoting bits and pieces, in an attempt to forestall this kind of crap, to no apparent enlightenment.

 

You don't even see that, am I right?

 

 

 

Here is a quote from the abstract:

 

That isn't true, and my guess is the falsehood is unintentional.

What the guy meant to say, if he was not being deliberately deceptive, is that he thinks the science has detected no direct and significant accomplished harm or damage so far. He's wrong about that, but at least not dishonest or terminally silly.

The collection of the research is possibly valuable, in other words, but the "overview" is apparently confused.

Or maybe not confused, exactly: The other possibility is foreshadowed in this quote from the abstract:

 

That doesn't sound good, does it. There is no "scientific consensus" on the large, varied, and quickly changing question of the "safety" of GE crops. There is no such thing, realistically - each new engineered crop, deployment procedure, economic situation, end usage of product, and ecological context is a different safety question. A "consensus" on glyphosate resistant soybeans in Kansas would not apply to Bt expressing cotton in Bangladesh - if such a consensus existed in the first place, which it does not.

So somebody - and it sure won't be any of the self-described "scientific" folks here - has to plow through that "selected" pile of papers, and see what's up. Until then, of course, no conclusions relevant to the thread can be drawn, except that some Italian guy with credentials thinks GMOs have checked out as benign so far - right? You do see that, I hope?

 

 

btw: This confusion of risk and hazard with accomplished harm appears to be a result of an organized campaign of media framing of the issue, an interesting example of the effects of media propaganda on the language and discourse of even apparently technical fields. On this thread, discussion of observed areas of serious risk is called "speculation", and like a falling man passing the tenth floor, we are supposed to accept as legitimate, valid "position" the conclusion that if no disaster has been confirmed to have struck then there are no evidences of trouble or observable areas of danger and hazard for us to consider. It sounds goofy when put like that, but reread this thread - there it is.

 

 

 

Can you cite any scientific study that shows that GMOs do any harm? I know they have the potential to do harm, a great many technologies do, use of pesticides and herbicides have the potential to do harm and studies exist that show some do but so far all you seem to be doing is asserting GMOs are harmful with no evidence to back it up except your assertions GMOs are harmful.

 

GMOs have vast potential but to make assertions based on hear say and baseless fear mongering does no one any good...

The very terminology used by GMO detractors like Franken food would seem to indicate all they have is fear mongering...

[overtone]

Can you cite any scientific study that shows that GMOs do any harm?

1) Check out how long it took to "show" that industrial hydrogenation of vegetable oils did harm. Consider that it was flat out lethal, directly killing people that whole time, and will continue to kill and cripple people for a generation to come. Check out - or recall, if your memeory works - when and how and from whom the warnings came about it, and how those people were treated. 2) Sure: dozens of studies showing resistance bred into pests, the famous rat diet cancer study recently pulled for vague reasons, the famous Brazil nut genetic transfer into soybeans that turned up allergenic (caught by chance, with the beans in production and marketed), the studies that show yield hit, the various surveys of economic side effects, and so forth and so on.

 

That isn't the problem. The problem is how to "show" something to people who will not recognize evidence, follow argument, or be "shown", anything.

 

 

 

I know they have the potential to do harm, a great many technologies do, use of pesticides and herbicides have the potential to do harm and studies exist that show some

Yes, and so the questions that come up would be: what kinds of harm, how much, at what likelihood, to whom, for whose benefit, and so forth. Read the thread, and notice where and how those questions are handled.

 

Tinkertoys have the potential to do harm. That is not an important matter, because no one has converted 75% of US housing and bridge infrastructure to tinkertoys without bothering to check out the obvious possible downsides, then handed all the research and regulation over to people making millions off their tinkertoy patents and affilliations.

 

 

 

GMOs have vast potential but to make assertions based on hear say and baseless fear mongering does no one any good.

Good thing nobody is doing that here.

 

Unless we are to presume that Darwinian theory is hearsay? Dozens of cases of bred in resistance are hearsay? Published studies of 200 rats followed for two years - that's hearsay? Observations of techniques and methods and resultant physical situations (such as: the genetic complex employed to inculcate glysphosate resistance is set up for easy horizontal transfer by mechanical means across distant taxa) are not a basis for evaluation?

 

How do you propose to discuss the risks and benefits of GMOs without considering that kind of stuff? If the like of pointing out that one does serious harm by almost certainly destroying the effectiveness of Bt and glyphosate (by broadcast exposure, extreme evolutionary pressure, and engineered abetting of code transfer, straight Darwinian theoretical analysis of the situation) is "fearmongering" and "hearsay", how do you propose to discuss these GMOs?

.

Edited December 6, 2013 by overtone