chadn737 Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Last night there was a great debate on Intelligence Squared over Genetically Modified Food. The science came out on top with audience overwhelmingly voting in favor of GMOs.Great information, very civil debate, well worth a watch.http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/1161-genetically-modify-food
overtone Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 (edited) Here's the opening statement, containing the assumed frame within which the debate is expected to remain if it wishes to earn the label "science" from the professionals in the field, such as the OP poster: Genetically modified (GM) foods have been around for decades. Created by modifying the DNA of one organism through the introduction of genes from another, they are developed for a number of different reasons—to fight disease, enhance flavor, resist pests, improve nutrition, survive drought—and are mainly found in our food supply in processed foods using corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, and as feed for farm animals. Across the country and around the world, communities are fighting the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. Are they safe? How do they impact the environment? Can they improve food security? Is the world better off with or without GM food? As you can see, it's fundamentally confused where it is not simply wrong. Take it in order t: 1) One or two genetic modifications have been "around for decades" in human food - that would be two decades, for glyphosate resistance in beans and maize, and a bit less than that for Bt expression in maize. So the very first sentence in their framing of the debate is at best deceptive. Not a good start. 2) The list of reasons given for GM development omits the major and overwhelmingly dominant reason for GM development to date, which is exemplified by the glyphosate resistance modification that is the only real base for their "decades" assertion: agribusiness profit. Go through the list for yourself - none of those reasons motivated the development of GM glyphosate resistance. And that's the oldest and most important GM. 3) "Are they safe" is a meaningless, empty question about GMOs in general. They vary enormously, and for each one there are many arenas in which to evaluate its "safety" - from human medical to marine watershed ecological to international financial. Obviously some GMOs are flat out dangerous in various ways, others are probably benign in almost all ways, all carry some degree of risk. The degree of risk often depends far more on how a particular GMO is promulgated and deployed than on its intrinsic physical nature, so the question would be better phrased something like "is Monsanto's current mode of deployment of 2,4D resistant GMOs safer than it's apparently disastrous broadcast of glyphosate resistance, in the US?" or "is China's deployment of Bt expression in long-lived cellulose crops such as poplar trees more or less ecologically risky than India's apparently misfortunate deployment in shortlived cellulose crops such as cotton?" A somewhat pressing issue that comes up here is the risks we run by not monitoring for the effects of particular GMOs - not labeling the derivation of foodstuffs, say, to abet large scale epidemiological studies of the kind that exposed the effects of industrial processing trans fats in the diet, not doing long term and comprehensively evaluated exposure studies in lab animals, etc. 4) "How do they impact the environment" must also be narrowed considerably to have any hope of an answer - and more than that, the paucity of research in most specific cases (specific GMOs in specific ecological situations) firmly and explicitly acknowledged. In many specific cases we lack sufficient baseline knowledge of the environment in the first place - observe the quantity and scope of basic research into the interactions between honeybees and the environment that had to be done on an emergency basis when Bt resistant maize came under suspicion in Colony Collapse Disorder. And honeybees are our best known insect. 5) "Can they improve food security" Of course some GMOs and potential GMOs could in theory improve food security in some places. That's obvious - hardly worth asking. Will the actual GMO deployments currently underway in subSaharan Africa improve food security there? An entirely different question. Is what's good for Monsanto good for poor people's food security in Haiti? 6) "Is the world better off with or without GM food?" Again, a pragmatic question answerable only in the future and largely dependent on political and economic matters not intrinsic to any particular GMO. The theoretical upside potential of genetic engineering techniques is so large that it is difficult to imagine a net loss to the world from their development - but a bit of attention paid to the awareness and level of wariness among their developers, as well as the motives and behaviors of their sponsoring corporations, can bring one pause. Especially in opportunity cost, such as that of the loss of some Bt pesticides and glyphosate herbicide and other comparatively benign agrichemicals, we seem to be digging a hole that will take some time to haul out of. Edited December 5, 2014 by overtone
Strange Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 1) One or two genetic modifications have been "around for decades" in human food - that would be two decades, As you think that "decades" does not mean the same thing as "decades", I gave up reading at that point.
overtone Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 1) One or two genetic modifications have been "around for decades" in human food - that would be two decades, As you think that "decades" does not mean the same thing as "decades", I gave up reading at that point. So soon? - before you had comprehended even the simplest of meanings? Because I don't think anything of the sort, nor did I say anything of the sort. You seem to be misrepresenting my post, actually, troll fashion. Not to worry: I think you will have plenty of company, based on my experience with the professionals and experts on this forum. This is the forum where even the moderators sign off on assertions like: "The consensus of scientists is that GMOs are safe". That's a quote, not a joke. It was meant sincerely, not as a sendup of GMO proponents. But you might try again - I'm willing: my contention was that claiming "GMOs" { the category, the lot of them, is clearly intended} have been "around" { generally and commonly present} " in human food" {that seems to imply humans generally, not a fraction living in part of one continent} "for decades" {seems to imply a long time, certainly farther back than 1994} , is a deceptive statement. Very few GMOs have been eaten by very many humans at all, and none have been a significant part of anyone's diet for more than a couple of decades now - not even one human generation, of that small and unmonitored fraction of the world's human beings who have been eating food from even one GM for even one decade. Less than one generation of one small fraction of the world's people have been eating GMO food for even one decade. Nobody has been monitoring them for ill effects generally. And all GMOs are different, usually radically different, from the others. Eating one tells us almost nothing about eating a different one. There is no reassurance about "GMOs" in general from having had people eat one of them for, say, centuries - the new ones will be different, with their own risks and costs and benefits. So a less deceptive statement might read "we are entering an era in which genetically modified food crops of several different kinds are likely to become common factors in many people's diets" and go from there. I think that would influence the ensuing debate.
hypervalent_iodine Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 ! Moderator Note No. Overtone, we've been here before and you know our stance with you on this. Unless the discussion is specifically questioning health effects of GMO's, it is off topic.
overtone Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Here's the OP: Are they safe? How do they impact the environment? Can they improve food security? Is the world better off with or without GM food? Here's the typical moderation: "Unless the discussion is specifically questioning health effects of GMO's, it is off topic." Does anyone except me see the problem? And you know something? Even posts restricted to specifically noting the direct and obvious human health risks of a GMO - such as the newly released 2-4D resistant GM food crops in the US, where they are necessary to replace the destroyed effectiveness of the much safer and more benign - in its risks to human health among others, don't shoot - glyphosate herbicide, thereby (because GM herbicide resistance leads directly to broadcast and blanket overuse of the herbicide, and this one is more dangerous than glyphosate) putting human health at some yet greater risk not yet researched (any more than the glyphosate resistance GM was) will not be acceptable here. Watch and see. No one can actually discuss the risks of GMOs on this forum. Scientifically, you see, they somehow don't exist. No evidence of harm from no adequate studies of potential harm in one or two GMOs = safety in all GMOs. By decree on this forum that is so. I can't even post the discussion earlier in which the pros here informed us all that 1) resistance to glyphosate was vanishingly unlikely and nothing to worry about, and 2) one of the great virtues of herbicide resistant GMOs was that they brought about a reduction in the use of more dangerous herbicides such as 2-4D carriers. Before this post is removed by the defenders of science here - the common response to such offensive posting as this has been to remove it, while letting the falsehoods and errors stand - I'm going to say this for whomever is quick enough to read it: I was right, and every pro here (chad, hypervalent, the lot of you) was badly and publicly and insultingly wrong, about glyphosate resistance developing and the agribusiness response of more poisonous broadcasting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/epa-enlist-duo-weed-killer_n_5990482.html It was a no-brainer - a dead easy call, anyone with Biology 101 under their belt should have made it automatically. But not here. Edited December 9, 2014 by overtone -2
chadn737 Posted December 9, 2014 Author Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Here's the OP: Here's the typical moderation: "Unless the discussion is specifically questioning health effects of GMO's, it is off topic." Does anyone except me see the problem? And you know something? Even posts restricted to specifically noting the direct and obvious human health risks of a GMO - such as the newly released 2-4D resistant GM food crops in the US, where they are necessary to replace the destroyed effectiveness of the much safer and more benign - in its risks to human health among others, don't shoot - glyphosate herbicide, thereby (because GM herbicide resistance leads directly to broadcast and blanket overuse of the herbicide, and this one is more dangerous than glyphosate) putting human health at some yet greater risk not yet researched (any more than the glyphosate resistance GM was) will not be acceptable here. Watch and see. No one can actually discuss the risks of GMOs on this forum. Scientifically, you see, they somehow don't exist. No evidence of harm from no adequate studies of potential harm in one or two GMOs = safety in all GMOs. By decree on this forum that is so. I can't even post the discussion earlier in which the pros here informed us all that 1) resistance to glyphosate was vanishingly unlikely and nothing to worry about, and 2) one of the great virtues of herbicide resistant GMOs was that they brought about a reduction in the use of more dangerous herbicides such as 2-4D carriers. Before this post is removed by the defenders of science here - the common response to such offensive posting as this has been to remove it, while letting the falsehoods and errors stand - I'm going to say this for whomever is quick enough to read it: I was right, and every pro here (chad, hypervalent, the lot of you) was badly and publicly and insultingly wrong, about glyphosate resistance developing and the agribusiness response of more poisonous broadcasting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/epa-enlist-duo-weed-killer_n_5990482.html It was a no-brainer - a dead easy call, anyone with Biology 101 under their belt should have made it automatically. But not here. Wrong about glyphosate resistance? I challenge you to show any comment I have ever made that says I was "wrong" about glyphosate resistance. Herbicide resistance is an old problem that predates GMOs by decades. It also does not make the weeds more "weedy" in a traditional sense. It only means that the handful of species that are resistant must be controlled by other means. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of weeds that are not resistant. In the absence of GMOs, glyphosate is limited only pre-plant usage and tillage or more toxic herbicides must be used during the growing season....both having huge disadvantages. If weed resistance develops, then how are we worse off than before the use of GMOs? We aren't. We couldn't use glyphosate post-plant before GMOs. At one time humans farmed (and still do in most crops) without glyphosate period. To listen to you and others complaining about this, one gets the impression that all of farming is and always has been completely dependent upon glyphosate. If its a matter of the "amount" used. While Glyphosate usage has gone up, it has largely been at the expense of using LESS of other herbicides that are far more toxic environmentally and too human health. The overall effect is that we are using more of a much safer product which is a net benefit. Glyphosate resistance is only a problem in that it keeps us from using glyphosate. I agree that it is a problem from this perspective, but it is only a problem if you already support using glyphosate in the first place. If you are opposed to its use, then you are proposing a farming system that would never use it anyhow, in which case resistance is irrelevant. For those of us who applaud the use of a safer more effective herbicide that allows one to use better farming methods like no-till, it is a problem and I advocate using a diverse mixture of herbicides to reduce/eliminate resistance. However, typically those complaining of superweeds don't want us using glyphosate period, in which case, the presence of weeds who are only resistant to glyphosate and not mechanical means of control amounts to a circular argument. GMOs are also a broad class of products. Talking about the use of a single herbicide like glyphosate when you have other GMOs like Bt, virus resistant Papaya, virus resistant squash, acrylamide reducing potatoes (Innate potatoes), non-browning apples, vitamin-A enriched crops (rice, maize, bananas), drought resistant corn, etc is to miss the forest for the trees and an attempt to reframe the debate. Edited December 9, 2014 by chadn737
imatfaal Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 ....No one can actually discuss the risks of GMOs on this forum. .. ! Moderator Note Overtone - the above statement, undoubtedly, also includes you. Your method of debate is exemplified by the above posts; your polemics tend to misrepresent your interlocutors, cherry-pick facts, claim victory through misdirection, and slander your opponents -- whilst you adopt a pseudo-Galilean attitude of persecution. I agree with your fundamental position in most of the topics you comment on here at Science Forums - yet regularly I am called upon to moderate your comments and to ask you to change your behaviour. This is ScienceForums.Net and the method of discussion will be rational, fact-based, and civil; when members stray, as you often do, into rhetoric and preaching then the staff will act to prevent this from continuing and to return the debate to an evidence-based discussion. Your posts above will not be hidden - but any further comments about moderation will be. 2
billvon Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Last night there was a great debate on Intelligence Squared over Genetically Modified Food. The science came out on top with audience overwhelmingly voting in favor of GMOs. Golden rice (beta-carotene enhanced rice) has been around for quite some time, and there have been several trials I've heard of. Have there been any reports/updates on its success or failure?
hypervalent_iodine Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 ! Moderator Note overtone, What part about our moderation isn't clear to you? You've been suspended twice now for ignoring us and continuing this warped crusade, littered with fallacy, bad arguments, wrong facts and less than civil retorts. To say that it is getting tiresome would be a gross understatement. Please re-read the modnotes here, particularly imatfaal's, and if anything does not make sense, ask us about it via PM or the report system. Do not think that it is okay for you just continue posting in the same fashion here or very soon you'll find you can't post here at all.
Recommended Posts