Absolutely! GMO products have many benefits, and they should be sold to the public on those benefits.
Yes, there is a lot of pseudoscientific misinformation out there, but the solution to that is to educate people on the facts, not to deceive them into becoming unwitting customers by withholding information.
Sure. The article also goes along the line of "let's label things as a great way to build trust with consumers", and that's obviously a good thing.
Though I wonder if the asymmetrical requirements for this type of labelling is overall a good thing. Consumers will instinctively treat it as a warning message. Along similar lines, is it a good thing that medicines are strictly regulated and labelled? Definitely. Is it a good thing that unproven and scientifically highly implausible "cures" get placed on the same shelves, sans warnings? I'm not so sure. We shouldn't be creating market opportunities for lesser technologies aimed at an uniformed public.
I've been preaching this sentiment for a few years, it's always fun to sign those petitions in the grocery store while telling the petitioner they are way off base on GMO's being "dangerous" (it's like saying the internet should be shutdown because someone could steal your credit card information.)
I really believe any products coming from large scale farms should be labeled with their strain, growing technique, pesticides used, and what farm it came from. I do think labeling GMO's will have the opposite effect as most pro-label people believe. Once people realize most of their food has had GMO's in it for years and to eat all non-GMO will cost them double or triple, they will all simmer down.
However, "GMO" itself is still a murky term. We genetically engineered all sorts of crops before we could easily manipulate DNA at a molecular level. For example, ruby red grapefruit was engineered by planting earlier cultivars around a radioactive pole to induce widespread mutations (and thus new varieties).
What is UD here? Uncertainty and doubt? Do you mean that the comparison using selective breeding is some kind of false argument or a straw man?
I feel like selective breeding is sufficiently similar to warrant comparison. You could easily do both short-term and long-term harm or good with both if you can get people to eat what you breed.
Yes, I mean that pointing to selective breeding as if it's "all the justification for gene splicing you'll ever need" is a false equivalence. Sure, you can compare them, but you can not point to a few similarities and then wave any differences away. As one example: with selective breeding, you can at least be confident that the resulting strain is viable within its ecosystem since it is itself the product of numerous generations. Gene splicing does not come with that same viability guarantee.
And I do mean that it is harmful to both sides of the debate. I have no clue whether the characterization above is even remotely valid. But most of the rhetoric is so content-free that it does not help me alter my view around GMO, in either direction.
And lastly: US (and many other international) corporations do not have a good track record when it comes to acknowledging and respecting human health. The backlash against GMO is, I feel, at least partly attributable to the tobacco, food and oil industry, and the "sciences" that were complicit.
> As one example: with selective breeding, you can at least be confident that the resulting strain is viable within its ecosystem since it is itself the product of numerous generations.
Like hell you can. Genetic diseases and deformities have been present as long as life itself, and human selective breeding has certainly brought out traits in cultivated plants and animals that would not be present without human intervention into their ecosystem.
There are undoubtedly issues with GMO if it is abused - but the fact that it is capable of sharp distinctions between right and wrong and can be legally controlled is good, and should be embraced. Happy to see GMO companies take steps in this direction. You can't reliably control whether someone breeds dogs to suffer hip dysplasia or constant headaches due to their brain being too large for their skull. Less emotively, you can't reliably control whether apple breeders end up with over-sweet mush that no-one wants or banana breeders end up with infertile crops. We can and (I believe) should control whether or not Monsanto engineers defective crops designed to maximise their profits at the expense of farmers (note: Monsanto has not actually marketed or sold the famous 'sterile' or 'terminator' seeds at time of writing, although they own the patent). We can and should control whether or not a GMO dog is created that suffers from hip dysplasia or injurious brain problems.
Funnily enough, one of the reasons the terminator gene was created was because anti-gmo activist wanted assurances that artificially created genes wouldn't escape into the wild.
In addition, farmers who rotate crops also want terminator seeds because it reduces the number of volunteer plants in subsequent harvests.
Most of the anti terminator stuff I've read betrays a deep lack of understanding about how the underlying technology actually works.
Some "fun" facts on that:
- applying massive radiation (on plants) to increase the mutation rate does not count as GMO
- modern Gene Editing like TALEN (and probably CRISPR soon) are currently being interpreted as non-GMO by the regulators
I believe you are correct here, however, I do not think there is much of a difference in the end result. The popular phrase is that past techniques (radiation, selective breeding) are like taking a hammer to a genome, whereas new techniques are like taking a scalpel to a genome.
Selective breeding is not the same as injecting the genome sequences of deep sea fish species into your plats to produce new chemical elements we have no fucking idea of what they do to consumers during 60+ years of consumption.
You inject genes, not genomes. Injecting genomes is how breeding works, not how genetic engineering works.
> to produce new chemical elements
New elements are exclusively the domain of stars, nuclear physics, and particle accelerators. They have nothing to do with biology. I'll continue on the assumption that you meant "molecules."
> no fucking idea of what they do
It's the other way around: in selective breeding you're trying random genomes until you get literally anything that works. It would take tons of additional study to figure out why it worked, how it worked, and what the side effects are. Contrast to genetic engineering where you start with a very specific biological goal in mind, often the production of a single molecule or small set of molecules whose structure and characteristics have been extensively studied.
Suppose you set out to produce more Bt protein in the plant's leaves so that it's toxic to insects while the competition breeds a plant that seems to be similarly resistant to insects. Which plant is safer? In both cases you have to do a study to find out, but in the case of the GMO you can use ultra high sensitivity studies because you can purify Bt and test its effects on mice and humans. In contrast, the plant produced by breeding would have to have an absurdly huge sample size to achieve the same sensitivity. Historically, plant breeders don't bother.
Both approaches are almost always good enough, but of the two genetic engineering allows for much more precise risk prediction and characterization. That's one of genetic engineering's strong points, not weak points.
I thought it was the other way around: GMO gives you better selectivity, meaning you can use less pesticide to get a given yield?
I can't speak for glyphosate, but for Bt I seem to remember that you need 10x or 100x the concentration if you spray it on account of not being able to distribute it perfectly evenly.
The problem is that historically the US and now global companies have a bad record of consumer protection and low regulation, specially when it comes to new technology, and you can't trust companies to act on the best interests of consumers.
(lead poisoning, fracking, tobacco industry, pharma testing, environmental disasters by oil companies, agent orange and many, many more)
Glyphosate use is way _up_ because it's a non-selective herbicide so you never used it the way they use it now. Back then you'd use it at certain times of the year when the field was barren, or maybe along a hedgerow here and there. You had to be careful because it would just as easily destroy your crop as the weeds. Now they blast the whole field with it (and it drifts next door into my field, where I am growing grape vines that are hyper-sensitive to the stuff.)
The end result is a huge loss in biodiversity.
I don't care about GMO for its health effects in the food chain. I care about its environmental effects.
> Now they blast the whole field with it (and it drifts next door into my field, where I am growing grape vines that are hyper-sensitive to the stuff.)
You can't blame genetic modification for shitty farmers. That's like blaming NSA surveillance on the Internet.
Yes, I spent a day in a grower's pesticide training course and have a certificate here in Ontario to buy and spray pesticides.
RoundUp like most pesticides is shipped and stored in a highly concentrated state. The farmer will then tank mix that with a whole lot of water to produce the actual usable pesticide.
But how is concentration related to toxicity or environmental impact? I know it is sensationalist, but videos like this make it very hard to take the word of the GMO lobby for granted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
Glyphosate itself is likely non-toxic to mammals. But the carriers (detergents, adjuvants, etc.) that it is in are decidedly not. I wouldn't drink it either. At best it'd be like drinking a cup of dishwasher soap.
The other ingredients are not nearly as heavily regulated as the pesticide itself. There is some concern that damage to amphibians, aquatic organisms etc. could be a result of the detergents and stickers added to the sprays rather than the spray themselves.
Hehe, exactly, and even then, companies will mutate the crap out of yeast (for beer for example, or bacteria for Yoghurt) to make them more efficient. When they reach a satisfactory level of increased efficient they don't use said yeast/bacterial strain. Instead, they will put a wild-type yeast in a UV oven and screen for exactly the same mutations as artificially induced in the first strain. Only in the second case the process is called: Classical strain enhancement.
This terrible argument seems to crop up again and again. Selective Breeding IS NOT Genetic Engineering.
Suppose I told you that I wanted a good-looking dog. There are two ways to get that. On one hand, I could get a great male dog and mate it with a great female dog and produce a good-looking dog for you. On the other hand, I could take any dog and perform plastic surgery to make it into the dog you want. Although the final product may be similar, does anyone believe those two processes are the same? It's absolutely a nonsensical assertion.
To put this in terms of logic, you're arguing that because Process X and Process Y both lead to Outcome Z, Process X and Process Y are equivalent. We know that the general case of this argument is false (e.g. bribing a police officer or not committing crime both keep you out of jail, but they are not the same processes). If you want to argue that this argument holds in the special case of GMOs, you have to argue for it! You cannot just state it and expect us to believe it because it is false in the general case.
There's a difference between marker assisted selection ('traditional' breeding aided by the use of genetic analysis to look for desired traits early) and physically editing the genome.
I suspect you'd find most GMO critics are fine with the former.
Most worrisome there have been several cases where funding for breeding programs has been cut because the 'new hotness' of genetic engineering pulls in more industry funding.
An example is the 'Arctic' non-browning GMO apple here in Canada. It's a sad stupid story. Non-browning already exists as a potential trait in the natural Malus genome. Selective breeding had already produced apples here and there that had this trait. Despite this federal funding and regulatory approval was extended to the GMO program and cut from traditional breeding. And an existing non-GMO non-browning apple was ordered destroyed from a research centre.
Meanwhile the Arctic apple even after approval for sale has only generated controversy, and now consumers who are suspicious about GMO will be suspicious about _any_ apple that demonstrates non-browning, GMO or not.
"I suspect you'd find most GMO critics are fine with the former"
Most GMO critics that I have spoken to don't have a clue about how it actually works. "A fish gene in a plant?!?" being the sort of quote they will come out with, not realizing that we share a huge portion of our genomes with fish.
If you want to be taken seriously, take on the best of the GMO skeptics rather than the worst. Going for easy pickings like these is a waste of everyone's time.
I haven't met you you just replied to a comment on this forum. Plus horticulture doesn't imply an understanding of what is going on during cell replication at a molecular level (OK, I said did say biology, can we change that to molecular biology).
>Once people realize most of their food has had GMO's in it for years and to eat all non-GMO will cost them double or triple, they will all simmer down.
I don't think most of the food consumed globally has GMO in it, even so for countries with significantly smaller GDP than the US. Agree though, give as much transparency as you can, put on as many information as possible and let the customers decide what they want.
This is a terrible idea because crops are commodity. Imagine if when writing software, you had to label the brand of every proccesser used in all development machines. Not to mention the huge advantage this would give to larger farms.
My initial reaction is to agree, and that more information is always a positive thing. But as I've read further into the issue I've come around to the other side. That by putting labels on GMO products specifically, we're implying that there's a safety concern.
The comments from anti-GMO groups are strongly in support of labeling, and the reasons generally come down to "it'll make it easier to ban them".
So at this point my feeling is that labeling is only beneficial if it includes all the information -- more of a history of the ingredients. Do they come from GMOs, cross or mutation breeding?
If the issue were really about giving consumers the right to know, this would be the ideal solution. Otherwise - and I suspect this is the case - labeling appears to be step 1 in an effort to ban GMOs completely. And considering the positive impacts GMOs will have for the human race in the next 20 years, that would be very disappointing indeed.
> My initial reaction is to agree, and that more information is always a positive thing. But as I've read further into the issue I've come around to the other side. That by putting labels on GMO products specifically, we're implying that there's a safety concern.
Exactly. The thinly veiled motivation of most labeling proponents is to use it as a scare tactic.
I've always viewed it as being similar in spirit to putting those "Evolution is just a theory" stickers on high school biology textbooks.
"GMO-haters" are often blatantly ignoring science. However I fully agree that labeling is a pretty good idea. Transparency is good, a quick-facts box, a GMO stamp of sorts and a QR-code that links to a dedicated website with super detailed information (even linking to relevant papers) would be ideal. The more transparent GMOs are the better. It seems there is quite a lot of FUD by anti-GMO people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think GMO companies default to being good people. Some spend decent chunks of money on lobby work which always has me worried and some are entangled in somewhat questionable science funding but by and large I think there's way too much blind hatred for GMOs in general (or my media perception is quite distorted which could also be true)
Most of the hate for GMOs are rooted in politics - the science often has little to do with it. Monsanto's business practices and their early attempts to create complete lock-in for farmers along with trying to get the EU to force GMOs on consumers drives a lot of the fear and anguish.
As a far as the science is concerned there is plenty of fearmongering but again this drives the political debate. As a counter example look at the hype over CRISPR - nobody is up in arms about the possibilities for curing cancer although the chances of things going wrong for early trials in people are probably higher and the outcome rather more ghastly.
Exactly. Provide a 'Gene list' similar to an ingredients list. It lists a gene identifier, and a percent regulation (+/-, up down). And a QR/link to more info. That way the public can both be informed about what is going on, and can figure out if they want RoundUpProtexion™ or Vitamin B Synthase in their food.
And it is not information overload - or at least that should be a non-argument. The idea that the public knows what monosodium-glutamate, or high-fructose corn-syrup, or cholesterol, are all a result of labeling. And on the balance, significantly for the public's good.
People say transparency is good and more info is good. Well to play devil's advocate it seems pretty obvious labeling the race of the people making the product so consumers can choose not to buy products made my a certain race of people would be bad. In other words it seems it's not true that all transparency and information is good.
In this case I tend to believe labelling will mostly be used for ignorance not info
>it seems pretty obvious labeling the race of the people making the product so consumers can choose not to buy products made my a certain race of people would be bad
Because the "race" of the person is irrelevant?
Maybe there are political or moral reasons as to why you would choose to not purchase from a certain country (ie human rights), but of course we do have labels for that.
Who are you to decide what's irrelevant? More information is always better, right? Let people decide for themselves?
Also, never mind that there are certain instances where concerns against certain countries is merely thinly veiled racism against the people in those countries.
The parent was obviously, as they stated in so many words, playing devils advocate (and so was I in the above, for the record). The subtext is that whether it's GMO or not is equally irrelevant and will only serve a purpose for those with unfounded prejudices (and for those that might be confused into giving such prejudice undue consideration).
But nobody seems to have an issue with that. No problems for selective breeding with huge mutations from radiation or mutagenic chemicals, but insert some precise, well-studied genes into another organism and people lose their minds.
From a marketing point of view, labeling is only going to take away a value-add advantage that non-GMO products have over unlabeled items. I am aware of several GMO free companies that are growing by leaps and bounds, and can charge 20% more by VOLUNTARILY labeling their products as GMO free. If all food products are forced to label themselves as GMO or GMO free, this price premium isn't so great because the cost of all food products goes up to pay for the labeling + FDA oversight. In addition, if you ran consumer marketing A/B testing to compare two products labeled GMO free vs GMO and GMO free vs no label, it might actually show that more GMO free products are sold when displayed against a no label product rather than a GMO label product. Finally, mandatory labeling for nutritional products hasn't been proven to dramatically affect health outcomes of a population, so it seems like the outcome of a GMO labeling requirement wouldn't be too different from that.
I appreciate the sentiment behind this article because to me not all GMO goods are the same. For example, if a given ingredient is GMO to be Roundup ready, I'm not keen to support that[1]. For others, maybe there isn't enough data to know if the food produced is not harmful to us... in the US, the regulators are balancing the needs of the businesses and the needs of the consumers, and sometimes that balance is tilted toward letting the business get its goods out even in the face of uncertainty.
Compounding all of this is the crazy complexity of nutrition research which makes it difficult to assess the long term impact of anything we eat on our health.
In short, I tend to eat organic not because I think GMOs are intrinsically bad, but because they raise questions about the pesticides used and the track record of the given ingredient. "GMO" by itself doesn't tell me if something is good or bad.
GMO - what's not to love about plants designed to bath in larger quantities of carcinogenic pesticides whilst their natural competitors wither under the chemical assault? Or seeds that do not allow the next generation to seed? I mean that's great right?
I am saddened by the comments expressed here. They proudly support gene hacking and unsympathetically hate all those who call for caution and care.
We keep adding to our information banks about DNA. We had and have more questions than answers about the complexities of DNA. And yet we still want to modify the gene artificially and put the results into production without waiting on more research. This seems like a form of hubris, because we think the knowledge we have is enough.
The opponents of genetic modification give anger and frustration to supporters that they end up putting on side blinders and blissfully ignore all of the very causes of concern. It is a behavior similar to global warming skeptics reacting against climate change alarmists.
Philosophically speaking, there is a concept called the Dunning-Kruger effect: The people with the least doubt in what they are doing perform the worst, whereas the people with the most doubt perform a whole lot better. Doubt is healthy, and foolish pride/arrogance can only lead us to failure.
So let's agree that more research is needed. And let's not bash those who want to side with caution. And let's allow for freedom and respect to label GMO's as GMOs. We reach a healthy society, not a dictating one.
> Philosophically speaking, there is a concept called the Dunning-Kruger effect: The people with the least doubt in what they are doing perform the worst, whereas the people with the most doubt perform a whole lot better.
That's not what the Dunning-Kruger paper said. Simplified to a sentence, it could be paraphrased as "We are unqualified to evaluate our own performance". People who perform the worst generally still rate themselves as performing the worst, they just think they are a whole lot closer to everyone else than they actually are.
So what level of proof that these are safe would you like? I haven't been able to find a SINGLE case in the 30+ years of genetically modifying food where a person had an adverse reaction directly related to the genetic modification. Even if you up the requirements for testing to match what is required for drug companies with clinical trials, every single genetic modification we have done so far would have passed those trials with flying colors.
Here's the thing about wanting more research; you can always do more research. There's no such thing as having a full understanding of something, so it's a bit of a cop-out to just say "ehhh, more research is needed". You can say that till the cows come home. And aside from that, we still don't even really understand "food", there's no "food science" that is even close to accurate.
There are millions of people involved in the food supply chain. At some point, if a GMO food becomes toxic to us, by sheer probability, someone involved in food will raise the alarms.
I think the caution around GMO foods is misplaced. GMO, Organic, or neither, the kid at the grocery store sprays chemicals all over them multiple times a day to keep them fresh. Vegetables and fruits are picked under-ripe and ripened with chemicals. The food is packaged in plastics and shipped along a smokey, polluted freeway. Of all the things to attack about the food supply chain, GMO is the last thing to worry about.
I feel for those who fear GMOs. Food is incredibly intimate. They're terrified that the stuff they literally subsist upon is being fucked around with in ways they don't understand by people they don't know for reasons they don't grasp. They feel their fears aren't being taken seriously and engaged with as reasonable concerns. They feel dismissed and belittled by people who look down on them.
There. Some sympathy. Feeling better? Cool. Because basically none of the concerns and fears that most consumers have are reasonable. Most of them are nothing more unjustified, baseless terror of the fishberries someone said are here to poison them.
How should I - or anyone - react to that? You cannot reason with a person possessed of such terror. I've tried. You cannot educate them. I've tried that too. You can't listen to them, offer sympathy and compassion and understanding, and then try to reason with them. I've tried that too, and it blows up in spectacular fashion.
There is a voluntary solution -- follow the Underwriters' Labs model. The non-GMO (by whatever definition) suppliers should create or support an organization that provides a label for those suppliers that meet the non-GMO criteria. Consumers can choose to buy only food with that label. Misuse of the label will land an infringer in court.
Simple, straightforward, and not subject to politics.
65 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadYes, there is a lot of pseudoscientific misinformation out there, but the solution to that is to educate people on the facts, not to deceive them into becoming unwitting customers by withholding information.
Though I wonder if the asymmetrical requirements for this type of labelling is overall a good thing. Consumers will instinctively treat it as a warning message. Along similar lines, is it a good thing that medicines are strictly regulated and labelled? Definitely. Is it a good thing that unproven and scientifically highly implausible "cures" get placed on the same shelves, sans warnings? I'm not so sure. We shouldn't be creating market opportunities for lesser technologies aimed at an uniformed public.
I really believe any products coming from large scale farms should be labeled with their strain, growing technique, pesticides used, and what farm it came from. I do think labeling GMO's will have the opposite effect as most pro-label people believe. Once people realize most of their food has had GMO's in it for years and to eat all non-GMO will cost them double or triple, they will all simmer down.
However, "GMO" itself is still a murky term. We genetically engineered all sorts of crops before we could easily manipulate DNA at a molecular level. For example, ruby red grapefruit was engineered by planting earlier cultivars around a radioactive pole to induce widespread mutations (and thus new varieties).
Centuries later, they were selectively bred to be orange by Dutch royalists (in support of the royal House of Orange).
I feel like selective breeding is sufficiently similar to warrant comparison. You could easily do both short-term and long-term harm or good with both if you can get people to eat what you breed.
And I do mean that it is harmful to both sides of the debate. I have no clue whether the characterization above is even remotely valid. But most of the rhetoric is so content-free that it does not help me alter my view around GMO, in either direction.
And lastly: US (and many other international) corporations do not have a good track record when it comes to acknowledging and respecting human health. The backlash against GMO is, I feel, at least partly attributable to the tobacco, food and oil industry, and the "sciences" that were complicit.
Like hell you can. Genetic diseases and deformities have been present as long as life itself, and human selective breeding has certainly brought out traits in cultivated plants and animals that would not be present without human intervention into their ecosystem.
http://www.petpugdog.com/pug-breathing-problems http://thesharpeivet.co.uk/services/skin-problems/ http://web-dvm.net/what-has-happened-to-the-german-shepherd-... http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/incidenc.htm http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/toy-dog-breeding-caus...
There are undoubtedly issues with GMO if it is abused - but the fact that it is capable of sharp distinctions between right and wrong and can be legally controlled is good, and should be embraced. Happy to see GMO companies take steps in this direction. You can't reliably control whether someone breeds dogs to suffer hip dysplasia or constant headaches due to their brain being too large for their skull. Less emotively, you can't reliably control whether apple breeders end up with over-sweet mush that no-one wants or banana breeders end up with infertile crops. We can and (I believe) should control whether or not Monsanto engineers defective crops designed to maximise their profits at the expense of farmers (note: Monsanto has not actually marketed or sold the famous 'sterile' or 'terminator' seeds at time of writing, although they own the patent). We can and should control whether or not a GMO dog is created that suffers from hip dysplasia or injurious brain problems.
In addition, farmers who rotate crops also want terminator seeds because it reduces the number of volunteer plants in subsequent harvests.
Most of the anti terminator stuff I've read betrays a deep lack of understanding about how the underlying technology actually works.
Since in this case you're not adding new functionality, only disabling certain "features".
[Edit] I'm not saying I agree with this definition, only that it's the one being used by the regulator in the US.
You inject genes, not genomes. Injecting genomes is how breeding works, not how genetic engineering works.
> to produce new chemical elements
New elements are exclusively the domain of stars, nuclear physics, and particle accelerators. They have nothing to do with biology. I'll continue on the assumption that you meant "molecules."
> no fucking idea of what they do
It's the other way around: in selective breeding you're trying random genomes until you get literally anything that works. It would take tons of additional study to figure out why it worked, how it worked, and what the side effects are. Contrast to genetic engineering where you start with a very specific biological goal in mind, often the production of a single molecule or small set of molecules whose structure and characteristics have been extensively studied.
Suppose you set out to produce more Bt protein in the plant's leaves so that it's toxic to insects while the competition breeds a plant that seems to be similarly resistant to insects. Which plant is safer? In both cases you have to do a study to find out, but in the case of the GMO you can use ultra high sensitivity studies because you can purify Bt and test its effects on mice and humans. In contrast, the plant produced by breeding would have to have an absurdly huge sample size to achieve the same sensitivity. Historically, plant breeders don't bother.
Both approaches are almost always good enough, but of the two genetic engineering allows for much more precise risk prediction and characterization. That's one of genetic engineering's strong points, not weak points.
I'd prefer explicit pesticide labeling but GMO labeling is a close enough approximation. GMO usually means an extra dollop of roundup.
I can't speak for glyphosate, but for Bt I seem to remember that you need 10x or 100x the concentration if you spray it on account of not being able to distribute it perfectly evenly.
(lead poisoning, fracking, tobacco industry, pharma testing, environmental disasters by oil companies, agent orange and many, many more)
The end result is a huge loss in biodiversity.
I don't care about GMO for its health effects in the food chain. I care about its environmental effects.
You can't blame genetic modification for shitty farmers. That's like blaming NSA surveillance on the Internet.
The shitty farming though is definitely a result of the Roundup Ready product line. It's the recommended and most optimal way to use it.
RoundUp like most pesticides is shipped and stored in a highly concentrated state. The farmer will then tank mix that with a whole lot of water to produce the actual usable pesticide.
The video you posted is highly misleading.
The other ingredients are not nearly as heavily regulated as the pesticide itself. There is some concern that damage to amphibians, aquatic organisms etc. could be a result of the detergents and stickers added to the sprays rather than the spray themselves.
Suppose I told you that I wanted a good-looking dog. There are two ways to get that. On one hand, I could get a great male dog and mate it with a great female dog and produce a good-looking dog for you. On the other hand, I could take any dog and perform plastic surgery to make it into the dog you want. Although the final product may be similar, does anyone believe those two processes are the same? It's absolutely a nonsensical assertion.
To put this in terms of logic, you're arguing that because Process X and Process Y both lead to Outcome Z, Process X and Process Y are equivalent. We know that the general case of this argument is false (e.g. bribing a police officer or not committing crime both keep you out of jail, but they are not the same processes). If you want to argue that this argument holds in the special case of GMOs, you have to argue for it! You cannot just state it and expect us to believe it because it is false in the general case.
I suspect you'd find most GMO critics are fine with the former.
Most worrisome there have been several cases where funding for breeding programs has been cut because the 'new hotness' of genetic engineering pulls in more industry funding.
An example is the 'Arctic' non-browning GMO apple here in Canada. It's a sad stupid story. Non-browning already exists as a potential trait in the natural Malus genome. Selective breeding had already produced apples here and there that had this trait. Despite this federal funding and regulatory approval was extended to the GMO program and cut from traditional breeding. And an existing non-GMO non-browning apple was ordered destroyed from a research centre.
Meanwhile the Arctic apple even after approval for sale has only generated controversy, and now consumers who are suspicious about GMO will be suspicious about _any_ apple that demonstrates non-browning, GMO or not.
Most GMO critics that I have spoken to don't have a clue about how it actually works. "A fish gene in a plant?!?" being the sort of quote they will come out with, not realizing that we share a huge portion of our genomes with fish.
But sure, go on beating up your straw man.
I don't think most of the food consumed globally has GMO in it, even so for countries with significantly smaller GDP than the US. Agree though, give as much transparency as you can, put on as many information as possible and let the customers decide what they want.
The comments from anti-GMO groups are strongly in support of labeling, and the reasons generally come down to "it'll make it easier to ban them".
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/20...
So at this point my feeling is that labeling is only beneficial if it includes all the information -- more of a history of the ingredients. Do they come from GMOs, cross or mutation breeding?
If the issue were really about giving consumers the right to know, this would be the ideal solution. Otherwise - and I suspect this is the case - labeling appears to be step 1 in an effort to ban GMOs completely. And considering the positive impacts GMOs will have for the human race in the next 20 years, that would be very disappointing indeed.
Exactly. The thinly veiled motivation of most labeling proponents is to use it as a scare tactic.
I've always viewed it as being similar in spirit to putting those "Evolution is just a theory" stickers on high school biology textbooks.
I think the author is overly hopeful that people will educate themselves on what GMO actually means.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think GMO companies default to being good people. Some spend decent chunks of money on lobby work which always has me worried and some are entangled in somewhat questionable science funding but by and large I think there's way too much blind hatred for GMOs in general (or my media perception is quite distorted which could also be true)
The author of the article has it pretty right imo
As a far as the science is concerned there is plenty of fearmongering but again this drives the political debate. As a counter example look at the hype over CRISPR - nobody is up in arms about the possibilities for curing cancer although the chances of things going wrong for early trials in people are probably higher and the outcome rather more ghastly.
And it is not information overload - or at least that should be a non-argument. The idea that the public knows what monosodium-glutamate, or high-fructose corn-syrup, or cholesterol, are all a result of labeling. And on the balance, significantly for the public's good.
People say transparency is good and more info is good. Well to play devil's advocate it seems pretty obvious labeling the race of the people making the product so consumers can choose not to buy products made my a certain race of people would be bad. In other words it seems it's not true that all transparency and information is good.
In this case I tend to believe labelling will mostly be used for ignorance not info
Because the "race" of the person is irrelevant?
Maybe there are political or moral reasons as to why you would choose to not purchase from a certain country (ie human rights), but of course we do have labels for that.
Also, never mind that there are certain instances where concerns against certain countries is merely thinly veiled racism against the people in those countries.
The parent was obviously, as they stated in so many words, playing devils advocate (and so was I in the above, for the record). The subtext is that whether it's GMO or not is equally irrelevant and will only serve a purpose for those with unfounded prejudices (and for those that might be confused into giving such prejudice undue consideration).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
But nobody seems to have an issue with that. No problems for selective breeding with huge mutations from radiation or mutagenic chemicals, but insert some precise, well-studied genes into another organism and people lose their minds.
Compounding all of this is the crazy complexity of nutrition research which makes it difficult to assess the long term impact of anything we eat on our health.
In short, I tend to eat organic not because I think GMOs are intrinsically bad, but because they raise questions about the pesticides used and the track record of the given ingredient. "GMO" by itself doesn't tell me if something is good or bad.
[1]: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-glyphosate...
We keep adding to our information banks about DNA. We had and have more questions than answers about the complexities of DNA. And yet we still want to modify the gene artificially and put the results into production without waiting on more research. This seems like a form of hubris, because we think the knowledge we have is enough.
The opponents of genetic modification give anger and frustration to supporters that they end up putting on side blinders and blissfully ignore all of the very causes of concern. It is a behavior similar to global warming skeptics reacting against climate change alarmists.
Philosophically speaking, there is a concept called the Dunning-Kruger effect: The people with the least doubt in what they are doing perform the worst, whereas the people with the most doubt perform a whole lot better. Doubt is healthy, and foolish pride/arrogance can only lead us to failure.
So let's agree that more research is needed. And let's not bash those who want to side with caution. And let's allow for freedom and respect to label GMO's as GMOs. We reach a healthy society, not a dictating one.
That's not what the Dunning-Kruger paper said. Simplified to a sentence, it could be paraphrased as "We are unqualified to evaluate our own performance". People who perform the worst generally still rate themselves as performing the worst, they just think they are a whole lot closer to everyone else than they actually are.
There are millions of people involved in the food supply chain. At some point, if a GMO food becomes toxic to us, by sheer probability, someone involved in food will raise the alarms.
I think the caution around GMO foods is misplaced. GMO, Organic, or neither, the kid at the grocery store sprays chemicals all over them multiple times a day to keep them fresh. Vegetables and fruits are picked under-ripe and ripened with chemicals. The food is packaged in plastics and shipped along a smokey, polluted freeway. Of all the things to attack about the food supply chain, GMO is the last thing to worry about.
There. Some sympathy. Feeling better? Cool. Because basically none of the concerns and fears that most consumers have are reasonable. Most of them are nothing more unjustified, baseless terror of the fishberries someone said are here to poison them.
How should I - or anyone - react to that? You cannot reason with a person possessed of such terror. I've tried. You cannot educate them. I've tried that too. You can't listen to them, offer sympathy and compassion and understanding, and then try to reason with them. I've tried that too, and it blows up in spectacular fashion.
Simple, straightforward, and not subject to politics.
[1] http://www.nongmoproject.org/