General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOpen letter from more than 800 scientists warning about GMO's.
Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 04:28 PM - Edit history (3)
Some people will no doubt call this "anti-GMO woo."
My chief concern is that GMO foods should be clearly labeled, so that people with allergies and all people can know what they're eating. Let the consumer decide.
But the GMO producers are fighting labeling.
(Edit to add: below I've added an interesting statement from Scientific American, talking about how the producers of GMO foods are restricting research on their products.)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d5fd9b8d65f4976%2C0
Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
The scientists are extremely concerned about the hazards of GMOs to biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health, and demand a moratorium on environmental releases in accordance with the precautionary principle.
They are opposed to GM crops that will intensify corporate monopoly, exacerbate inequality and prevent the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can provide food security and health around the world.
They call for a ban on patents of life-forms and living processes which threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources and violate basic human rights and dignity.
They want more support on research and development of non-corporate, sustainable agriculture that can benefit family farmers all over the world.
Previous versions of this letter were submitted to many governments and international forums including:
World Trade Organization Conference in Seattle (November 30 Dec. 2, 1999)
UN Biosafety Protocol Meeting in Montreal (24 28, Jan. 2000)
UN Commission on Sustainable Development Conference on Sustainable Agriculture in New York (April 24-May 5, 2000)
UN Convention on Biological Diversity Conference in Nairobi (May 16-24, 2000)
United States Congress (29 June, 2000)
Signed by 828 scientists from 84 different countries, including:
SNIP
______________________________________
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end
By The Editors (of Scientific American)
"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a companys intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
niyad
(112,443 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)Poo = corporately backed "science" & Associated PR.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Being able to sue for patent infringement when your own cops pollinate someone else's, or worse, if someone buys your seeds and then saves seeds for next year. Even if there turns out to be zero health issues, GMOs are still a huge problem for that reason alone.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)that's reprehensible.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Unless they have something to hide, of course.
roody
(10,849 posts)bobclark86
(1,415 posts)If it has corn, soy or canola, and it's grown in the U.S., the chance is less than 1 in 10 it's NOT a GMO (and they mix the GMO and non-GMO together before using it, so your chances are even worse). Corn and soy have been like this for more than two decades now.
Every taco shell. Every store-bought cookie. Every can of Pepsi. Every french fry, hamburger bun, bottle of ketchup, stick of margarine...
Unless you have a very, VERY strict diet AND you grow every single thing you consume, you've statistically eaten your weight in GMO soy and corn many times over.
<insert scary Bach organ music and lightning here>
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)bobclark86
(1,415 posts)whether there is a reason to be or not. Making it a front-of-the-label issue on pretty much every food product would hurt business, whether any actual proof of harm is found or not.
Just like saccharin. At first, everyone thought it was going to give you cancer from half a can of Tab. By 2000, it was proven saccharin could cause cancer -- but ONLY in certain male rats. It still carries that stigma.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Or the chance that it could hurt people?
Of all the food additives that the FDA regulates, why should genetic additives be the ONLY ones declared to be safe in advance, "unless demonstrated otherwise" -- while at the same time the government allows the GMO producers to prevent independent researchers from carrying out safety research that could demonstrate otherwise?
Do you see what I'm saying? First the FDA (during the Reagan administration) declared all GMO's to be safe, unless proven otherwise -- and then it allowed the manufacturers to prevent independent researchers from ever conducting such research.
A neat trick. We've all been played.
http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html
On May, 29 1992 the decision-makers issued a policy statement asserting there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GE foods do not entail different risks than conventional foods. Accordingly, the policy presumes every GE food is as safe as its conventional counterpart unless demonstrated otherwise. (The only exception is for foods from one of the few species involved in the most common food allergies.) The FDA does not require any testing, and testing is done on a purely voluntary basis by the manufacturer, with all critical decisions left to its discretion.
(As noted in Section B, U.S. law mandates that new foods such as these cannot be deemed safe unless there is a "reasonable certainty" they will not be harmful. Further, determination of safety must be based on solid evidence from standard testing. 21 CFR 170.3(b)&(h))
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)allergies, obesity, and diabetes keep rising. But there's no connection, of course.
We do need labeling, even if it means that purchases of GMO products drop -- as they did in Europe when labeling was required. Farmers may have to go back to planting non GMO plants, as they do in Europe and elsewhere.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)You think an increasingly sedentary lifestyle in America has NOTHING to do with obesity, diabetes, etc.? Instead of sarcastically inferring GMOs are to blame, I'd go with Ocam's Razor on this one.
Here's how it goes:
1) Factories start making processed shit for food -- super-high in calories, super-high in processed carbs, etc. GMOs make yields bigger, so more cheap crap to put in your Coke and Big Macs.
2) People don't have to work as much to get high-calorie foods. They can get jobs sitting at computers all day, rather than toiling in the fields to grow enough wheat to make a dumpling for their water soup.
3) The people who used to move around to get low-calorie foods now sit on their asses and get high-calorie foods.
4) ???
5) Profit (for the lipo clinics, PX90 creators, Lipitor manufacturers).
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Sedentary lifestyles can certainly be ONE of the factors.
But sedentary lifestyles don't explain the increases in food allergies and auto-immune diseases. And increasing the amount of exercise we get is something we have some control over.
As long as GMO products aren't labeled we have no control over them. And until the government requires the manufacturers to allow unfettered research -- the way they do with virtually all other commercial products -- no one will know how safe they really are.
Archae
(46,262 posts)The site is full of woo.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SO_emf.php
Ho is the director of the The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), an interest group that campaigns against what it sees as unethical uses of biotechnology.[6] The group published about climate change, GMOs, homeopathy, traditional chinese medicine, and water memory.
In reviewing the organisation, David Colquhoun accused the ISIS of promoting pseudoscience and specifically criticised Ho's understanding of homeopathy.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Colquhoun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And do you have a problem with Scientific American, too?
niyad
(112,443 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)They said in so many words that hybrid and GMO are the same thing. I could not believe Scientific American would print such blatantly obvious Monsanto propaganda.
Try inserting fish DNA, or whatever, into any plant cell by selective breeding, i.e., hybridization, some time. Hint, it cannot be done.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)are keeping independent researchers from carrying out research.
I think that's an important issue.
RC
(25,592 posts)We have been tinkering with our food's DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms' genomes, turning a scraggly grass into plump-kerneled corn, for example. For the past 20 years Americans have been eating plants in which scientists have used modern tools to insert a gene here or tweak a gene there, helping the crops tolerate drought and resist herbicides. Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea
As if cross breeding and GMO are somehow equivalent. This is the same BS strategy they sold the Iraq invasion with. It is propaganda 101, pure and simple.
No, they are not equivalent. With GM, you can get all kinds of franken plants and animals, impossible to get with cross breeding. Do we really need fish DNA or whatever, in our vegetables? Why would anyone want to ingest Round Up or pesticides, with every forkful of veggies? I sure don't.
The GM label needs to state the purpose and what was done to "improve" the item in question. Jellyfish DNA in rice? What could go wrong?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)for not allowing research.
Don't you think?
RC
(25,592 posts)Monsanto all but destroyed a good tool by their heavy handed law suites, actions and by coming out with GM pesticides that all but decimated the Monarch Butterfly. Another problem with GMO, is that there is no genetic diversity. There have already been problems with disease wiping out GM crops in some areas in the country. Hybrids don't have these problems, so are much better all around.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)are requiring all independent researchers to get their approval for research and often requiring confidentiality agreements. And the Scientific American editors are criticizing these firms for doing that.
RC
(25,592 posts)Even the title should give you a clue.
Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea
Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea
I read it as the editors pushing the GM and Hybrid equivalency BS and keeping people in the dark what they are actually eating.
There is a very good reason why GM is not popular when people know about it. As of yet, no one knows if it is even safe in the long run, because we incorporate some of the DNA into our own system from the foods we eat. It has only been 20 some years so far.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)that the Scientific American isn't "anti-gmo."
However, they ARE pro-research and pro-transparency. This is the article in the OP:
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end
By The Editors (of Scientific American)
"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a companys intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
RC
(25,592 posts)There seems to be a disconnect between the two.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)people who are generally supportive of gmo's object to the way the producers are preventing unfettered research.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,790 posts)Scientific American is very credible. The anti-research end-user agreement is a red flag the GMO companies have something to hide that they are afraid of having exposed.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)Maybe a brewsky...
Can't wait to see how you justify your derision...
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)oh yes, just in time.
Forget it, until the products of this technology have been independently tested, it is the gmo folks who are spewing pseudoscience.
Pretty obvious and tired. But oh so well funded!
You and? David Colquhoun?
Apparently, real scientists DO take this seriously. As does Scientific American. Since you seem to think that David Colquhoun's judgment trumps so many other scientists', tell us what he says about Scientific American.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)any site promoting anti-fluoridation views, IMO, isn't credible.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NotoFluoridation.php
Sid
Archae
(46,262 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Isn't it?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)but why should we think them credible when they're wrong so often?
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WaterRemembers.php
Sid
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Because the GMO producers are limiting or banning research with their seeds, independent researchers are unable to do research to confirm the claims put out by the producers, or to investigate further questions. How can anyone feel confidence in the claims of the GMO producers -- related to safety, contamination, or anything else -- when they refuse to let other researchers conduct unfettered research or they hide behind confidentiality agreements?
AG Professional
http://www.agprofessional.com/agprofessional-magazine/letting_science_do_its_job_120082274.html
Christian Krupke, Extension entomologist, Purdue University, stressed that nobody wants to infringe on intellectual property, much less violate stewardship agreements. What they do want is to be able to ask the questions that industry may not ask for whatever reason.
"You can't expect companies in the business to ask every conceivable question a university researcher might ask," he said. "We want to keep these products around and ensure they are durable for the long run. These restrictions make it much more difficult for public researchers to work toward that goal."
SNIP
"I don't think these events are being evaluated nearly as rigorously as they could be," said Krupke. "We may or may not agree with the findings of company X, but you can bet we will be asking some different questions."
What Can Be Questioned?
Perhaps the most serious aspect of the entire issue is the fact that even raising it was considered risky on the part of the entomologists. The original letter to the EPA advisory committee was to be anonymous. Nine, fearing it would have little validity, stepped forward, while another two dozen were very nervous about even taking a stand, reported Shields.
SNIP
"It is my impression, after 30 years as an Extension entomologist, that we serve as quality control and independent testers, even as far as consumer protection," said Shields. "We are severely handicapped in that role by not being able to do independent research. If we have to ask the company for permission, that gives them the right to refuse. If refused, you either don't do it or you put your institution at risk."
http://www.agprofessional.com/agprofessional-magazine/biotech_industry_in_a_quandary_over_research_rights_120083849.html
The restraints also reflect on the credibility of the partnership that has existed. "I like to be able to respond to the farmers of Indiana when they have questions," said Larry Bledsoe, Extension entomologist, Purdue University. "When I am asked my opinion and I have to say that I can't answer because of a confidentiality agreement with a company, there is silence and blinks from the farmer audience. They feel uncomfortable and so do I."
It is the broader university and other public research institutions that are a concern and the focus of the issue. In order to legally work with biotech crops, these researchers must negotiate permission. The permission may or may not mandate protocols, exclusions and data review. It can and often does mandate confidentiality.
SNIP
At first glance, the issue is simply one of permission to do research, but for the researchers involved, the National Academy of Sciences and the industry at large, it goes much deeper. For the first time that anyone can point to, research is being limited on commercial products. For public researchers, it is a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation. If they complain, they fear they will no longer receive permission for even limited research; hence the names withheld in the letter. Some entomologists are speaking out in this article and elsewhere, perhaps putting future research hopes on the line, but they feel it is worth the risk.
"We have to ask permission from each company to do the research, and that gives the company the right to refuse," explained Elson Shields, Extension entomologist, Cornell University, and a spokesman for the group of 26. "Refusal has happened, and it comes in one of several ways. Out right written refusal is rare. Verbal is more common, and the third is endless legal wrangling that costs the research institution so much in legal fees that they say no, or negotiations continue past planting date."
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html
Good policy is impossible without good information. Smart choices about the role of biotechnology in agriculture will depend on how much we know about its costs, benefits, and risks.
The GE Research "Battlefield"and the Need to Keep It Open
SNIP
With so much at stake, and axes to grind, it is vital to ensure that the makers of GE products are not the sole arbiters of what questions can be asked about those products, or who gets to answer them.
But multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto, have fought independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options.
In 2009, 26 academic entomologists wrote to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that because patents on engineered genes do not provide for independent non-commercial research, they could not perform adequate research on these crops. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops," they wrote.
A Purdue University entomologist who signed the letter put it more succinctly to a reporter for a scientific journal: "Industry is completely driving the bus."
SNIP
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/spreading-gene-contamination.html
The history of genetically engineered crops shows that it is not a matter of whether they will contaminate other farmers crops, but when and how much. Monsanto jeopardizes the future of the fast-growing non-GE and organic food sectorsand the environmental benefits they provideby threatening the purity of their products through gene contamination.
Monsanto has often taken farmers to court for growing its patented GE crop varieties in alleged violation of (or in the absence of) an agreement with the company.
While it's reasonable for the company to expect to be paid for its products, the issue becomes complicated when gene contamination enters the picture. It's one thing to sue a farmer for intentionally planting seeds containing patented genes without paying for them. It's another thing entirely when those genes turn up in farmers' crops without their knowledgeand, in the case of organic farmers, with potentially devastating consequences for their business.
Monsanto has disavowed any intention of suing farmers for inadvertent, small-scale violation of its patent rights. However, a group representing organic farmers, not content to leave the matter to the company's good intentions, in March 2011 filed suit in federal district court in New York, seeking a ruling prohibiting Monsanto from suing victims of gene contamination for unintentionally growing its products.
Monsanto filed for dismissal in July 2011; Judge Naomi Buchwald ruled in favor of Monsanto on February 27, 2012, dismissing the suit.
SNIP
Response to SidDithers (Reply #37)
indie9197 This message was self-deleted by its author.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)When you can't provide a suitable rebuttal, attack the messenger.
Whatever.
No amount of fake PR-agency fueled "conversation" can save these Big Ag companies that try to keep the American people from seeing labels that help them to know what they're eating.
Archae
(46,262 posts)If WND or Rush Limbaugh's web site used a Scientific American link, would you trust WND or Rush Limbaugh?
Obviously, no.
This "isis" site found a Scientific American article that backs up their woo.
And believe me, that site is STUFFED with woo.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)MH1
(17,537 posts)That's sufficient reason alone to be concerned about GMO's. And the only "woo" about it is the crazy woo that we can predict all the effects of what these companies are doing, who are only interested in their short-term bottom line.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)and that ALONE should be reason to oppose it. NEVERMIND the science, these people want to control the world's supply of seed.
Their harassment of small farmers and organic growers for accidentally having GMO seeds blow on their property, suing them out of business and confiscating lands is criminal.
If this was an honest endeavor they would never have to resort to underhanded tactics like this, or fight tooth and nail against simply labeling their fucking 'food'
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)In late 2010, I found out I am now gluten sensitive. But I didn't used to be.
This determination came after 24 months of the most terrible pains in my gut. It wasn't diverticulitis. Or cancer. Or anything anyone could figure out. Luckily my doctor believed me and let me have the pain meds that worked, or I might have jumped in front of a speeding train, I was in that much pain.
Cat scans, MRI even to see if brain tumor was tricking me into thinking my gut was in pain. Also X Rays, ultra sounds etc. (Glad I was fully insured at the time.)
What helped my Dr's staff make the right diagnosis was that one day I was not in pain. His staff made me figure out what I had done differently. I hadn't had any bread or pasta or pizza in a four day time frame; and so I tried going without gluten for good, and it worked. I got my life handed back to me.
But I am not sensitive to all gluten. I just bought five pounds of wheat that is organically grown and milled in the "Hungarian way." Breads and pasta made with this wheat work out fine with my digestive system.
So if Monsanto and other Big GM purveyors are making food make us sick, how long before they end up spelling doom for farmers who do the GM thing?
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)(along w/cancer) my belly, hands and feet swell up. Luckily I do fine with Ezekiel bread and hemp bread, and when I was overseas their flatbread didn't bother me at all....
In recent years I've had a couple of bad reactions, and never before was a picky or allergic type eater, but now have to be very careful.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)When is the last time a big corporation did any act of philanthropy? I truly doubt their basic sense of ethics, many have no problem with doing great harm to people and the planet.
And Monsanto is evil, that is a fact...
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)But I'd be careful with that special wheat, truedelphi. People with gluten sensitivity can go into a period of remission of symptoms, but it doesn't mean that's it's okay to eat gluten. Even without causing pain or other symptoms, gluten could still be damaging your system and increasing your susceptibility to autoimmune diseases and lymphoma.
Best of luck on this! I hope it works out for you -- just wouldn't take a chance myself.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)What scientifically credible reason could Monsanto have for preventing independent scientists from performing research with their seeds?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end
By The Editors (of Scientific American)
"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a companys intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)preventing researchers from replicating their studies in the OP.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Illogical tripe like, "X people say *something*" should be avoided by thinking people.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Scientists at MIT, Harvard, etc. aren't pursuing "woo."
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Don't fall right back into that argument from authority again.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)There are times when it's perfectly logical to cite an authority.
As the Wikipedia states, it's not logical to appeal to authorities when the person is not a subject matter expert. But many of the people on the list have a specific scientific background that qualifies them to speak on the matter.
For example:
Prof. Liebe Cavalieri, Mathematical Ecologist, Univ. Minnesota, USA
Dr. Thomas S. Cox, Geneticist, US Dept. of Agriculture (retired), India
Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Biologist/Ecologist, Rutgers University, USA
Dr. Vladimir Zajac, Oncovirologist, Genetisist, Cancer Reseach Inst, Czech Republic
Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Geneticist, Harvard University, USA
Prof. Jonathan King, Molecular Biologist, MIT, Cambridge, USA
Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Laboratoire de Biochimie & Moleculaire, Univ. Caen, France
Dr. David Suzuki, Geneticist, David Suzuki Foundation, Univ. British Columbia, Canada
Dr. Vandana Shiva, Theoretical Physicist and Ecologist, India
Dr. George Woodwell, Director, Woods Hole Research Center, USA
Prof. Oscar B. Zamora, Agronomist, U. Philippines, Los Banos, Philippines
Also, your Wikipedia reference states that it's a fallacy to appeal to authority in "cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter." I merely point to those scientists to prove that there is NO scientific consensus on the safety of GMO, despite what the paid-GMO-researchers want us to believe. It would be a fallacy if I implied that those 828 scientists were sufficient proof that GMO products are unsafe, but that's not what I'm saying. Those 828 scientists demonstrate that there is doubt -- a lack of consensus in the scientific community. I'm also saying that the paid-GMO-researchers have not proved that they ARE safe; and they won't, as long as independent researchers are prevented from replicating their results.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I could point to the 50,000 scientists who have no problem with GMOs and have the exact same validity (namely none).
So no, you are trying an appeal to authority- unsuccessfully.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)The reason there is no consensus is because Monsanto and the other agri-firms are blocking independent research.
And please link me to some article pointing to 50,000 scientists who have no problems with GMO's and no concern that Monsanto is blocking independent research about them.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You finally ready to give that up?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)In other words, they serve as a counter-example to the claim that the safety of GMO products has been accepted by scientific researchers.
You cannot prove there is a consensus in support of the products being safe or you would have by now.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Touting X number of scientists' position on a subject where there is no scientific consensus is a logical fallacy.
Now to be fair, what is the total number of scientists? (In which fields?)
If 828 is a minuscule fraction of (Mathematical Ecologists, Geneticists, Molecular Biologists, Theoretical Physicists, Biologists, Agronomists, Economists...) then you're approaching consensus.
Wait, just checking that list again.. why the hell should I listen to an Economist, a Natural Therapist, a Ph.D student, a Lawyer, a Linguist ...??
Remember that section in the wiki link, "cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert" ?
Pfft, your appeal to authority is getting thinner and thinner the more I look at it.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)that must be labeled in most of Europe, Britain, China, Taiwan, Japan, etc.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I'm not the one saying there is consensus.
I'd be happy if you dropped the logical fallacy, but you seem to think it's actually a valid way to make your argument.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)research as proof of the safety of Monsanto GMO food.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Was the sample sufficiently large to be statistically valid? Was the control sufficiently isolated? What were the measurement criteria?
Those are some of the things you need to look at to evaluate whether an experimental study is likely to yield legitimate results.
Science is not a popularity thing- It doesn't matter if every single scientist thinks something; that doesn't make it true. In the 14th century the consensus of astronomers was that the earth was the center of the universe. Two hundred years later, astronomers thought the sun was the center of the universe.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)studies -- all approved or paid for by GMO producers -- is supposed to be enough.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Don't remember any previous anti-GM foods topics that got over 40 rec's. Good work!
niyad
(112,443 posts)"authority", yes?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)niyad
(112,443 posts)argument, that there is all this wonderful "authority" proving gmo is safe? so, who gets to determine which "authorities" are acceptable? I am really curious about this.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Response to X_Digger (Reply #73)
niyad This message was self-deleted by its author.
niyad
(112,443 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I tend to be pro-science / anti-woo, and I'm not above ripping into a study that's poorly designed.
niyad
(112,443 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Our nation is the only developed nation that doesn't utilize International Protocols by which to do any testing. I wonder why that is...
Meanwhile, officials and scientists in other countries laugh themselves silly when our government or our Big Corporations announce how safe some product is.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)and paid for science lackeys issue some New study showing that everything is A-okay with GM seed or corps, you would be the first one announcing it.
Response to truedelphi (Reply #28)
Union Scribe This message was self-deleted by its author.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I just can't abide blatant logical fallacies as presented in the OP.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I Googled "scientists against global warming" and found that, omg, many American "scientists" have signed a petition calling man-made climate change fake! http://www.petitionproject.org/
Thank God we don't have to worry about that anymore.
You know, the amazing thing is that I went to the link in the OP and it said that "open letter" has been circulating the world since 1999, and in all the world they could only find less than a thousand signatories.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That combination- authority + popularity gets a lot of play in advertising, too- "8 out of 10 doctors say.." etc.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)In 1992, under the Reagan administration, the FDA -- after a fierce debate within the agency -- issued a policy statement declaring GMO foods to be as safe as their non-GMO counterparts "unless demonstrated otherwise."
And since then it has allowed GMO producers to prevent independent researchers from carrying out any research that could demonstrate otherwise.
A neat trick. We've been played.
http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html
On May, 29 1992 the decision-makers issued a policy statement asserting there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GE foods do not entail different risks than conventional foods. Accordingly, the policy presumes every GE food is as safe as its conventional counterpart unless demonstrated otherwise. (The only exception is for foods from one of the few species involved in the most common food allergies.) The FDA does not require any testing, and testing is done on a purely voluntary basis by the manufacturer, with all critical decisions left to its discretion.
(As noted in Section B, U.S. law mandates that new foods such as these cannot be deemed safe unless there is a "reasonable certainty" they will not be harmful. Further, determination of safety must be based on solid evidence from standard testing. 21 CFR 170.3(b)&(h))
Cha
(295,929 posts)Sept 8th! freaking trying to get Monsanto types to reveal what all poisons they're releasing on our Island.
Mana March Scheduled
snip//
"The fight over GMOs here on Kauai is far from over and both sides of the issue are digging in their heals. As Bill 2491 (Relating to Pesticides and Genetically Modified Organisms) continues to be discussed by the Kauai County Council, leaders both for and against the bill are planning their next steps.
On the PASS THE BILL side, another event has been scheduled for next weekend"
there's more..
http://northshorekauai.com/2013/08/30/mana-march-scheduled/
Mahalo for the article, pnwmom.
niyad
(112,443 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)snip//
"Thousands of Kauaians doctors, environmentalists, farmers, parents and concerned citizens from all walks of life poured into the streets of Lihue in a sea of red Sunday to participate in what organizers are calling the largest march in the islands history.
The message at least for this event was unified, loud and clear.
Pass the bill! the crowd, mostly dressed in red shirts, chanted as they walked from Vidinha Stadium to the lawn fronting the Historic County Building in Lihue.
Mana March, as it was called, brought together those in support of County Bill 2491, introduced in June by Kauai County Council members Gary Hooser and Tim Bynum.
If passed, 2491 would require Kauais largest agricultural companies to disclose the use of pesticides and genetically modified crops, establish pesticide-free buffer zones around public areas, and temporarily halt the expansion of genetically modified crop fields."
There's more..
http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/mana-march-draws-thousands/article_04ff6c36-190b-11e3-b902-001a4bcf887a.html
Very encouraging..
sheshe2
(83,356 posts)That is encouraging.
niyad
(112,443 posts)we can rec it, and for wider exposure??
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine
In Ireland, the Great Famine was a period of mass starvation, disease and emigration between 1845 and 1852.[1] It is also known, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine.[2] In the Irish language it is called an Gorta Mór (IPA: [ənˠ ˈɡɔɾˠtˠə ˈmˠoːɾˠ], meaning "the Great Hunger" [fn 1] or an Drochshaol ([ənˠ ˈdˠɾɔxˌhiːlˠ], meaning "the bad life" .
During the famine approximately 1 million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[3] causing the island's population to fall by between 20% and 25%.[4] The proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as potato blight.[5] Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Irelandwhere one-third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for foodwas exacerbated by a host of political, ethnic, religious, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[6][7]
(snip)
Potato dependency
The potato was introduced to Ireland as a garden crop of the gentry. By the late 17th century, it had become widespread as a supplementary rather than a principal food, as the main diet still revolved around butter, milk, and grain products. Over the course of one day, men could eat 60 potatoes, women ate 40 and children could eat 25 due to their exhausting work. In the first two decades of the 18th century, however, it became a base food of the poor, especially in winter.[23] Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the potatoes grown in Ireland were of a single variety, the Irish Lumper.[24] The expansion of the economy between 1760 and 1815 saw the potato make inroads into the diet of the people and became a staple food all the year round for farmers.[25] The large dependency on this single crop, and the lack of genetic variability among the plants that made up the crop in Ireland, were two of the reasons why the emergence of Phytophthora infestans had such devastating effects in Ireland, and had less severe effects in other European countries (which were also hit by the disease).[26]
Thanks for the thread, pnwmom.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)on limited strains of any food is a bad idea.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Doing to agriculture overall, I thought immediately of the Irish potato famine.
I want to thank you for pasting up all the history of the event.
However, the history you cited did not fully explain the predicament. The truth of the matter relates to how the British were pulling away so many veggies and fruits and grains away from the people of the Emerald Island, so that the majority of people who were Irish ended up with only their crop of potatoes. Even if they had raised animals that provided cheese and butter. So much was simply confiscated right out from under the average person that yes, potatoes ended up being the main stay of the average person's diet.
Without that addendum to the history, it indicates that the Irish were too stupid to understand how they needed to plant more than potatoes. What ended up killing so many, and forcing so many others to emigrate to America, had to do with greed, rather than with stupidity.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Irish famine.
Started when he fell for a band called Black 47. The "47" stands for the year 1847 when so many heavy duty edicts affected the Irish Catholic peasantry.
I grew up inside an Irish catholic school district and I never knew anything about this. We basically were taught that the Irish didn't know better.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)There was plenty of healthy food -- other than potatoes -- being produced in Ireland by the peasants for the absentee British landlords; and that food was being shipped out of the country because that produced a higher profit for the owners than making it available to the starving millions in Ireland.
It was a choice to allow the people to starve. Ireland was a net exporter of food during the famine. The advocates for this policy stated if the Irish were fed they would grow dependent on the government. That argument sounds familiar.
I liked the Leon Uris book Trinity.
JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)The global risk expert and the Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at New York University, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, responded on Twitter:
"Pro GMO people, check your understanding of 1) Risk & probability and 2) invoking 'morals' as a tactic while endangering people."
"Point 2: There are other alternatives with controlled & known side effects."
He also told Venter, a synthetic biologist with massive vested interests in the acceptance of genetic engineering and no background in risk (nor toxicology for that matter!):
"@JCVenter In other words it is not rigorous to make something with fat-tailed risks look like the 'only' alternative to (blindness) when it is not."
"Fat-tailed risks" means that when things go bad, they can go catastrophically bad.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15032-expert-who-predicted-global-economic-crash-thinks-risks-from-gmos-too-great
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)for the corporate pile of you-know-what.
And they think that the GMO-skeptics are gullible.
OneGrassRoot
(22,917 posts)I've been away for a while.
I need to continue to stay away.
K&R
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)It makes me wonder.
niyad
(112,443 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)"HERE... eat it, it's fiiiiiine!"
"What's in it? where'd it come from?"
"Just fucking buy and eat it!"
"Oh... ok."
niyad
(112,443 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Its content is horrifying but it's from 2009. Is this the current practice? Maybe, in the intervening four years, the EPA has followed the editorial's advice and banned such restrictive licenses.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Our EPA is a very flimsy shell of whatever good intentions the environmental crowd wanted back in the Seventies.
We are the only developed nation that does not use International Protocols and Standards when devising research parameters for a study. Scientists in other nations laugh themselves silly when our Big Corporations or the government announce how safe some product is.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)They suck.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)agree that they should be labeled. People should know what they are buying.