6 ms·

I have a degree in Molecular Biology and the utmost respect for good science. I avoid GMO products for a variety of reasons: 1. They're absolutely more likely

• selimthegrim 10y ago
  Seconding this - look what happens to the weed monocultures around the GMO fields and the resulting collapse of insect diversity
  • sliverstorm 10y ago
    What about GMO leads to more monoculture than ordinary farming, which has been guilty of plenty of monoculture?
    • selimthegrim 10y ago
      The weeds around the edges. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/17/peter-defazio/are-gmos-causing-monarch-butterflies-become-extinc/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/...
      • sliverstorm 10y ago
        Milkweed, like other weeds, can stifle crop yield, so farmers don’t like it Sounds like this isn't a fundamental problem with GMO's, it just allows farmers to fight milkweed more effectively than they could before. The best solution is to balance both interests, not to tie the hands of farmers or to eliminate milkweed. (I'm not sure how we do that) a 2007 congressional ethanol mandate increased the price of corn and soybeans, which encouraged farmers to convert grassland -- where milkweed grows -- into cropland Sounds like a policy problem, not a GMO problem?
        • hx87 10y ago
          > I'm not sure how we do that GMO milkweed, and other weeds, I presume. Perhaps Monsanto can create and patent an entire polyculture to be grown as a unit?
• stale2002 10y ago
  We don't really know the full long term effect of non-ionized cellar radiation. People only started carrying always on smart phones everywhere we go fairly recently. The people who hate radio waves would also argue that cell phones haven't been unequivocatively proven safe over the long term.
  • pipio21 10y ago
    which is true. You can die just by radio waves alone. I had a near family member that died from cancer in the army while working for the army near the microwave tower. Most of the people that worked with him died of the same cancer, the people working before him died of the same cancer. When we sued the Government on this they did the trick to account the general army population(that was not working near the tower) into the statistics to say it was all normal.
    • stale2002 10y ago
      No it is not. Ionized radiation is dangerous, non ionized is not, as proven by science.
    • mrob 10y ago
      I'd be more inclined to blame chemical carcinogens in that case. Old electrical equipment used things like PCBs in capacitors and transformers, and beryllium oxide thermal compound. Military organizations are sometimes exempt from civilian safety regulations and they are understandably willing to take long term safety risks if it reduces the risk of short term catastrophic failure. There could also be contamination there that pre-dates understanding of the danger. Even if the cancer cluster is real, I wouldn't consider non-ionizing radiation until I'd ruled out all the known carcinogens.
  • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    There was a time when we didn't know the full long term effects of radium-based paint for watch dials, either. That is, your argument by analogy proves nothing, especially since there are equally-valid analogs that disprove the point you're trying to make.
• searine 10y ago
  >I have a degree in Molecular Biology I have a PhD in Plant Genetics, if we're doing the whole credentials thing... >They're absolutely more likely to be harmful to the environment based on the general behavior of the companies that make them Original sin? These companies have done bad things in the past, that doesn't mean anything they produce is bad. >In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true... 2000+ studies affirm safety of GMOs, how many more do you need? : https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-... >Most of the studies declaring them safe have industry funding at their root. Half of all GMO safety studies have independent funding. http://genera.biofortified.org/wp/genera-announces-beta-test-launch http://genera.biofortified.org/wp/genera-announces-beta-test... >Most of the studies with "impartial" funding sources declare them potentially unsafe or are inconclusive. Yeah. That's complete BS. The wealth of evidence for safety is crushingly large. >I'm morally opposed to If you are morally opposed to something why are you prefacing it with technical expertise? Really disingenuous. Your food is not perfect. Your food is not real. Your food is not clean. Often, your food is trying to kill you with poisons. It's contaminated with listeria and ecoli. It's a hodgepodge of traits and chromosomes that looks nothing like their wild progenitors.
• sliverstorm 10y ago
  Modern food is hardly unadulterated. Have you heard about the sexually inviable hybrid that is manually cloned, with zero genetic diversity around the globe? It's called the banana. Or, how the ancestor to the Fuji apple was tiny, sour, and tough until we selectively bred them to be large and full of sugar? How about chickens that were bred to be so heavy they can't stand up? Supermarket chickens used to be a lot more like cornish hens.
• kevinnk 10y ago
  Your first point does not seem obvious to me. GMOs generally have a) significantly higher yields and b) smaller variation in yields than traditional products. That means far less land needs to be used for agriculture than otherwise. Considering ag is one of the more environmentally harmful industries, it seems like it would take a lot of bad behavior on Monsanto's part to offset the gains. Not defending Monsanto's actions, but at the very least it does not seem blatantly obvious that they are a net negative for the environment. I like your second point more, but the reality is that at the moment the risks seem tiny and the benefits are fairly large. There is essentially no way to prove that any technology doesn't have subtle, negative externalities (what kind of evidence would you like to see?) and in practice any "rule" so risk adverse that it bans GMOs would also ban many, many modern conveniences (for example, cell phones). Is that a net positive? I don't think so, but I know some people who might. Three is a bit generic so it's hard for me to argue. Yes, industry support for "independent" science is problematic, but the problem swings both ways. Supplements and "health food" are a massive industry and sponsor research/lobby the government the same way Monsanto does. That being said, it's unfortunate that companies muddy the waters, but the bottom line is that there is essentially no credible evidence that GMOs are in general harmful to humans and a lot of evidence that they are not. (Additionally, you used the word "most", which implies that you know of at least some studies that do not have industry funding and declare them safe. Are those studies not conclusive enough for you?) For four, "unadulterated food" seems clearly not perfect (at least to me) given the amount of time and energy that farmers spend trying to grow it. At the very least, you must surely agree that there is some variation in the desirability of "natural" plants. Doesn't that imply that not all "natural" plants are perfect? Additionally, the "unadulterated" food you buy in a grocery store has been bred over thousands of years to be more appealing, resilient, etc. Is it only the "natural" variety of the food that is perfect, or the version in the grocery store? If the latter, when did they reach the global optimum and at what point did any further variation become bad? Finally, if natural plants are perfect, how do you explain cost and risk sensitive farmers using the presumably less perfect GMO products?
• BeetleB 10y ago
  >I have a degree in Molecular Biology and the utmost respect for good science. OK. >They're absolutely more likely to be harmful to the environment based on the general behavior of the companies that make them (Syngenta, Monstanto, etc.). There shouldn't really be any debate on this. Guilt by association is bad science. Saying "shouldn't really be any debate" is not an attitude a good scientist has. Also, "absolutely more likely" doesn't make sense. >In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.' Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has nothing to do with scientific principles. > Most of the studies declaring them safe have industry funding at their root. ... Careerism and loose morals in this field give me plenty of reason to at least be skeptical of a Pro-GMO general consensus...and of overly enthusiastic new science in general. Do you avoid pharmaceutical products as well? They suffer from the same problems. >I'm morally opposed to supporting products that support mucking with an already perfect product, namely real, clean, unadulterated food Again, this has nothing to do with science. And, I can assure you: Many, many people disagree with the characterization of "already perfect product"
  • 09bjb 10y ago
    You're right; "GMO producers generally don't respect the environment, and that behavior may extend to their products" is an opinion, not science. It's up for debate. As is "near-perfect food already exists and doesn't benefit from messing with it." Also an opinion. Science and Industry exist in a tight, codependent feedback loop. Industry gets many of its most important new breakthroughs by funding new science; science gets to happen exponentially faster than it would otherwise through industry funding. This is inevitable; I'm simply arguing for 1) not checking our skepticism at the door, and 2) allowing for consumers to make their own choices in the matter.
  • pitaj 10y ago
    > >In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.' > Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has nothing to do with scientific principles. I think you are actually wrong about this. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. This is reflective of the principle in reason that the burden of proof falls of the claimant of the positive claim. The real question here is, "which is actually the negative claim?" Is claiming something safe a negative claim, or is claiming something is harmful a negative claim? This is where I think OP is incorrect: safety is merely lack of harmfulness. Therefore, claiming that something is safe is the negative claim, and claiming that something is harmful is the positive claim. A reasonable person should assume things are safe until there is significant evidence that they are harmful.
• gohrt 10y ago
  > an already perfect product, namely real, clean, unadulterated food. Name one food you eat that is "real, clean, unadulterated". You are conflating "food I ate as a child" with "food in its original natural state".
  • 09bjb 10y ago
    No; I would argue that near-perfect food already exists. That's an opinion, but one I've come to through what I think are logical, reasonable precepts. The very limited upside of ag companies (or startups like Soylent for that mattter) messing with food and then immediately marketing it as safe and consumable, is irresponsible. Doubly so when what I have is near-perfect the way it is. And yes, I'm aware of the breeding techniques that went into a lot of what we eat today and view as "natural." So-called "heritage" varieties of vegetables, as well as their still-"wild" counterparts, come close to what I perceive to be perfectly nutritious. Pastured meats, fed with the above if supplemented with feed, also come close. You have to get into the nitty-gritty on which plants were hybridized which way to know for sure what, for example, your increased allergen risk might be as a result of that breeding. Heritage/wild/pastured is an imperfect but helpful heuristic IMO.
    • searine 10y ago
      >The very limited upside of ag companies (or startups like Soylent for that mattter) messing with food and then immediately marketing it as safe and consumable, is irresponsible. GMOs are regulated by the EPA, USDA, and FDA. Traditionally bred varieties are regulated by NO ONE. Traditionally bred varieties routinely poison people. From potatoes (solanin) to celery (psoralens) they produce toxic and potentially deadly chemicals that nobody checks for. Your perfect "heritage" (do you mean heirloom?) varieties have poisoned more people this year than GMO crops have in their entire history. Get off your naturalistic fallacy high horse.
    • blahi 10y ago
      I just like to point out that several people have asked you to back up your opinions and you came back and said "that's just my opinions which I think are logical, reasonable precepts" and nothing more and even ignored the toughest challengers (see searine's comment, the 2nd level one, not the sibling).
• hx87 10y ago
  > In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.' The former statement does not imply the latter--it depends on whether you default to "we assume, as a null hypothesis, that everything is harmless until proven harmful", as in the US, or "we assume, as a null hypothesis, that everything is harmful until proven harmless", as in the European Union (which, by the way, is not "the rest of the world").
• revelation 10y ago
  It's a bit silly to turn on your computer, powered from the grid, in your air conditioned house, and complain on the internet about "not understanding the full effects of something new". It's barely a step above NIMBY, next you are going to get into your car running on dead dinosaurs, accelerating to speeds no animal can reach on top of sealed land to go to some council meeting and complain about the "unpredictable effects".
• gnipgnip 10y ago
  > 4. To feed the world, we need better distribution and smarter farming practices, not the sort of "solutions" that Monsanto et all have peddled (see what's happened in India where adoption of GMO seeds was widespread). It's less about GMO, and more about mechanisms. I've heard many stories about how Monsanto sets up incentives to the seed-sellers, which end up increasing the prices of seeds by 4-5x (plus all the propreitary round-up stuff one has to buy) ... all this, apparently for yields that are no better. People like Vandana Shiva have claimed that this increased financial burden (note that INR is undervalued by about 4-5 times) has been responsible for the suicides of many cotton farmers. This is the kind of crony-capitalism that makes people run the other way into the arms of an all powerful state (which often is no different from such corporations). Very very sad, to be honest. I think someone said that between the powerless and the mighty, rules are liberating and freedom is oppressive. I understand now what this means (and why I'm not a libertarian); then again one can use this excuse to make so many damn rules and keep a captive impovershed population (as in India). It's really hard to claim any one "ideology" is good; finding the middle path with binaries is rather a bit like Zeno's runner. The current government of ostensible "nationalists"/"nativists" in power in India, and their mouthpieces, appear to already have been bought out by the American big-ag people. Here's the kind of stuff one such mouthpiece puts out (with striking frequency), https://duckduckgo.com/?q=GMO+site%3Aswarajyamag.com&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=GMO+site%3Aswarajyamag.com&ia=web The instrumentality by which India's politicians and elite act (and let's be honest, this is no different from most democracies) is very very despicable; status quo-ist bourgeoisie all these people are. This is often well known in Socialist circles, but really though, they are often far far worse. For contrast, check out some work on India's historical agricultural traditions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O84KGmAvBcU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O84KGmAvBcU