4 ms·

1. That is a non issue when most GMO food specifically allow us to do the opposite, use less pesticide. We can't vilify over something which is a more serious p

1. That is a non issue when most GMO food specifically allow us to do the opposite, use less pesticide. We can't vilify over something which is a more serious problem to non-GMO foods. 2. The alternative to GMO is mutagenesis which has been used for decades and means massive random mutations through radiation. This is how a lot of non-GMO food is developed. It can even be labeled organic. Obviously this is far more dangerous than doing a controlled changed of specific genes. This fact alone demonstrates how the anti-GMO crowd is scientific illiterate people engaging in scaremongering. There is no scientific basis for the anti-GMO position. (1) No it isn't reasonable as it allows uncontrolled mutations to be utilized rather than safe and controlled genetic changes. The concern and safety steps taking towards GMO is hysterical. Every day plants like potatoes would be illegal to eat today if they were required the same testing regime as GMO food. The real valid concern I think is the commercial aspect. Especially in the US with its insane patent laws one allows companies to take control over too much of what is important for society and life.

tomp 10y ago
> Obviously this is far more dangerous than doing a controlled changed of specific genes. This is not "obvious". Actually, I think it's obviously wrong. That's like saying, "Oh, nuclear research doesn't matter, nature could just randomly create a nuclear bomb." Well, no. (Although nuclear reactors do happen naturally.) If you're trying to create super-organisms/weapons, chances are, you'll succeed.
- icebraining 10y ago
  That jernfrost wrote that it "has been used for decades" implies they're not talking about natural events, but human action.
- jernfrost 10y ago
  I am NOT talking about NATURE I was specifically talking about mutagenesis. That is scientists purposefully subjecting seeds to radiation to cause random mutations in the hope of causing beneficial changes to the plant. If you are going to attack my argument at least take the time to understand it.
  - tomp 10y ago
    I think I understand your argument. You're saying that random development is just as dangerous as directed development. I gave you an example of the opposite (nature's "random" development (e.g. evolution, geological forces, formation of planets, ...) hasn't given us anything as small & deadly as a nuclear bomb).
    - alendit 10y ago
      You analogy isn't really on point. It's more of a difference between a controlled reaction (targeted gene splicing) and randomly smashing pieces of enriched uranium and watching what happens (non-site-specific mutagenesis).
ozy 10y ago
If it is a non issue, why is the EU banning it? I think you should rethink that one. Notice there are similar rules about the minimum time between using pesticide and harvest (afaik). "insane patent laws one allows companies to take control" Nobody is mandating their use. Farmers would not use them unless it makes commercial sense. But the point is, of all the issues raised in the article, these they kept quiet on. And it is these that anti-GMO people are the most concerned over. No matter how you feel about GMO, it is best to categorize this article as "propaganda", even if every word of it is true. This article polarizes the debate, not add to it. (And note I am pro GMO.)
- sampo 10y ago
  > If it is a non issue, why is the EU banning it? Why do some US schools teach creationism? Sadly, the anti-science lobby in EU is surprisingly strong. EU even had a chief scientific officer position, but they ended the whole position when the plant scientist in the position was defending the scientific view that GMOs are safe. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/sack-scientist-opinions-anne-glover-greenpeace https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/sack-s...
  - ozy 10y ago
    Actually, the eu is just by default not allowing GMOs, but as of today allows 51 GMO products. Including 1 that falls squarely into (1) (mon810).
- ptaipale 10y ago
  >If it is a non issue, why is the EU banning it? This question is very much like the justification of lynch mob: "If he didn't do it, why are they hanging him? Of course he did it, and hanging him is the proof!"
michael_h 10y ago
Concerning #1: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?smid=fb-share http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls... TLDR: "genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides"
- sampo 10y ago
  Several scientist have attacked and criticized/debunked that NYT article: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/10/31/strawmen-selective-statistics-new-york-times-botch-critique-gmo-crops/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/10/31/strawmen-s... https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/10/31/danny-hakims-new-york-times-gmo-expose-misleads/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/10/31/danny-haki... http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/10/rehashing-tired-argument.html http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/10/rehashing-tired-argument.... http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/11/some-actual-yield-data.html http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/11/some-actual-yield-data.ht... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/11/03/experts-slam-new-york-times-hack-job-on-gmos/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/11/03/expert...
  - wott 10y ago
    I just read the first one. The guy is attacking this: > At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States,…in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent. by answering this: > I have to say this comparison seems borderline disingenuous; the figures used to compare pesticide use in France vs the USA are convoluted and misleading. First, the data is presented in different units (thousand metric tons for France, compared to million pounds in the US), making a direct comparison nearly impossible. Oh boy... How does this address the point of the original article you quote? It does not talk about absolute values, it talks about evolution: increase on one side, decrease on the other one. Who cares about comparing absolutes values? That's a strawman. And he goes on: > Second, the pesticide amounts are not standardized per unit area, which is critically important since the USA has over 9 times the amount of farmland that France does; it would be shocking if the U.S. didn’t use far more pesticide when expressed this way. Same failure to address the point which was e-vo-lu-tion. > It is true that France has been reducing pesticide use, Ah.. so? > but France still uses more pesticides per arable hectare than we do in the USA. Because it is much more intensive agriculture and that's why there was no comparison of yelds. But a comparison of e-vol-lu-tions. And the yelds evolved the same way with and without GMO. But GMO users did not decrease pesticide use, and increased herbicide use, whereas non-GMO users did decrease both and yet kept their yields growing as fast. Jesus boy, how can you start your "debunking" article with such mistakes and fallacies...
InclinedPlane 10y ago
Uhhhh, that's not how GMOs work. Sometimes, maybe. But one of the most popular GMOs in the history of agriculture is roundup ready crops. Those are designed to allow you to slather your crops in pesticides that would normally be hazardous to them.

tomp 10y ago

> Obviously this is far more dangerous than doing a controlled changed of specific genes. This is not "obvious". Actually, I think it's obviously wrong. That's like saying, "Oh, nuclear research doesn't matter, nature could just randomly create a nuclear bomb." Well, no. (Although nuclear reactors do happen naturally.) If you're trying to create super-organisms/weapons, chances are, you'll succeed.

icebraining 10y ago
That jernfrost wrote that it "has been used for decades" implies they're not talking about natural events, but human action.
jernfrost 10y ago
I am NOT talking about NATURE I was specifically talking about mutagenesis. That is scientists purposefully subjecting seeds to radiation to cause random mutations in the hope of causing beneficial changes to the plant. If you are going to attack my argument at least take the time to understand it.
- tomp 10y ago
  I think I understand your argument. You're saying that random development is just as dangerous as directed development. I gave you an example of the opposite (nature's "random" development (e.g. evolution, geological forces, formation of planets, ...) hasn't given us anything as small & deadly as a nuclear bomb).
  - alendit 10y ago
    You analogy isn't really on point. It's more of a difference between a controlled reaction (targeted gene splicing) and randomly smashing pieces of enriched uranium and watching what happens (non-site-specific mutagenesis).

ozy 10y ago

If it is a non issue, why is the EU banning it? I think you should rethink that one. Notice there are similar rules about the minimum time between using pesticide and harvest (afaik). "insane patent laws one allows companies to take control" Nobody is mandating their use. Farmers would not use them unless it makes commercial sense. But the point is, of all the issues raised in the article, these they kept quiet on. And it is these that anti-GMO people are the most concerned over. No matter how you feel about GMO, it is best to categorize this article as "propaganda", even if every word of it is true. This article polarizes the debate, not add to it. (And note I am pro GMO.)

sampo 10y ago
> If it is a non issue, why is the EU banning it? Why do some US schools teach creationism? Sadly, the anti-science lobby in EU is surprisingly strong. EU even had a chief scientific officer position, but they ended the whole position when the plant scientist in the position was defending the scientific view that GMOs are safe. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/sack-scientist-opinions-anne-glover-greenpeace https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/sack-s...
- ozy 10y ago
  Actually, the eu is just by default not allowing GMOs, but as of today allows 51 GMO products. Including 1 that falls squarely into (1) (mon810).
ptaipale 10y ago
>If it is a non issue, why is the EU banning it? This question is very much like the justification of lynch mob: "If he didn't do it, why are they hanging him? Of course he did it, and hanging him is the proof!"

michael_h 10y ago

Concerning #1: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?smid=fb-share http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls... TLDR: "genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides"

sampo 10y ago
Several scientist have attacked and criticized/debunked that NYT article: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/10/31/strawmen-selective-statistics-new-york-times-botch-critique-gmo-crops/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/10/31/strawmen-s... https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/10/31/danny-hakims-new-york-times-gmo-expose-misleads/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/10/31/danny-haki... http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/10/rehashing-tired-argument.html http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/10/rehashing-tired-argument.... http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/11/some-actual-yield-data.html http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/11/some-actual-yield-data.ht... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/11/03/experts-slam-new-york-times-hack-job-on-gmos/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/11/03/expert...
- wott 10y ago
  I just read the first one. The guy is attacking this: > At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States,…in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent. by answering this: > I have to say this comparison seems borderline disingenuous; the figures used to compare pesticide use in France vs the USA are convoluted and misleading. First, the data is presented in different units (thousand metric tons for France, compared to million pounds in the US), making a direct comparison nearly impossible. Oh boy... How does this address the point of the original article you quote? It does not talk about absolute values, it talks about evolution: increase on one side, decrease on the other one. Who cares about comparing absolutes values? That's a strawman. And he goes on: > Second, the pesticide amounts are not standardized per unit area, which is critically important since the USA has over 9 times the amount of farmland that France does; it would be shocking if the U.S. didn’t use far more pesticide when expressed this way. Same failure to address the point which was e-vo-lu-tion. > It is true that France has been reducing pesticide use, Ah.. so? > but France still uses more pesticides per arable hectare than we do in the USA. Because it is much more intensive agriculture and that's why there was no comparison of yelds. But a comparison of e-vol-lu-tions. And the yelds evolved the same way with and without GMO. But GMO users did not decrease pesticide use, and increased herbicide use, whereas non-GMO users did decrease both and yet kept their yields growing as fast. Jesus boy, how can you start your "debunking" article with such mistakes and fallacies...

InclinedPlane 10y ago

Uhhhh, that's not how GMOs work. Sometimes, maybe. But one of the most popular GMOs in the history of agriculture is roundup ready crops. Those are designed to allow you to slather your crops in pesticides that would normally be hazardous to them.