6 ms·

And also, I doubt that you will find people these days who are not aware of tobacco dangers. That tobacco companies still make a good profit just shows that if

by Fins 9y ago

And also, I doubt that you will find people these days who are not aware of tobacco dangers. That tobacco companies still make a good profit just shows that if you have a legal (although Mr. Escobar might argue that legality isn't required either) product that people want, you'll make money. You will lose significant money if you are hiding its dangers, though. By the logic in the second paragraph, what's the difference between vaccines and GMO food? Is it that anti-vaxxer idiots endanger people here, while anti-GMO idiots starve people way over there?

TangoTrotFox 9y ago
Actually this is great! Let's look at some data together. The first genetically engineered product was released in 1994. It was called the Flavr Savr Tomato [1]. There are a couple of big points here. The reason this is important is because we can now look at a graph of food availability [2]. You might notice that well before genetic engineering of products was a thing, there was more than bountiful food that was increasing at a steady rate. Genetic engineering has had a negligible impact on this one way or the other. The next point is worldwide share, which gets back to the original post. The primary goal of genetic engineering foodstuffs is profit, and the developed world is where that profit is at. That said the big GMO companies have increasingly started to target the developing world. But that change in direction happened as acreage growth in the developed world began to flatline, and in some cases decline. This [3] is a summary report of GMOs from ISAAA, which is a (pro) GMO advocacy group funded by Monsanto, Bayer, the USDA, and others.You'll note that GMOs are basically a US focused projected, though Brazil and Argentina also have substantial acreage. The whole point here is that GMOs are a product of no necessity. Monsanto is 'feeding a growing population' in the same way that McDonalds is, but at least you know when you're buying a Big Mac. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr [2] - https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/kcalcapitaday-by-world-regions-mg-png https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/... [3] - http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/52/executivesummary/default.asp http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/52/execut...
- Fins 9y ago
  Oh, sure, there was more than bountiful in the US and Europe. Saying that it was (or is) bountiful in, say, Africa seems to be a stretch. One could think that GMOs appear to be a US-centered because many developing countries, whose export markets are mostly European (i.e. very anti-GMO) are afraid to plant GMO crops for fear of losing those markets. I would presume, in absence of some proof of shenanigans, that 108 Nobel winners [0] had a good idea of safety and necessity of GMOs when they wrote this letter. [0] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nobel-laureates-greenpeace-gmos_us_5774c1a5e4b042fba1cf2b81 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nobel-laureates-greenpe...
  - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
    You're contradicting yourself here. Earlier you implied that without genetically engineered foodstuffs people in developing nations would starve. That belief is common, but obviously entirely wrong. You're now shifting it to developing nations aren't using these products because their exports (which implies a surplus of foods) might be hurt. The site referenced shows where all their data is from, if you find things difficult to believe. You should of course scrutinize all information. Something we all know, but sometimes forget when information confirms our own personal biases. In 1996 Africa's production was already capable of providing in excess of 2300 calories per person per day. It was a matter of distribution. Africa's problems are primarily social. You have to remember that they have something like 1/6th of the world's population but about 60% of the world's arable land. As for your letter, let's consider appeals to authority. In the early 20th century academia and intellectuals in the US were were full-on in favor of state enforced eugenics - and this was a topic they were actively involved in and studying. Hitler actually sited the American 'progress' on this issue as an inspiration. Were they right, because lots of smart people said they were? Or go back to leaded fuel. DuPont and other companies involved that catastrophe had long lists of scientists, experts, and professionals constantly testifying to its safety and necessity. In the past cigarette companies would regularly run ads showing doctors smoking and testifying to the safety of them. Suffice to say, when a company is trying to create an appeal to authority to convey a message - I think we should be particularly critical as it's the weakest form of argument that exists, even if it even qualifies as an argument. But anyhow, back to your letter - Huffington Post as usual was quite confused. The quote "GMOs are extensively tested and subjected to a higher degree of regulatory review than any other crops" is not in the letter that was signed. Here's the actual letter [1]. But the more interesting part is that that statement is of course completely false. People are constantly surprised (see: this thread for examples) that genetically engineered foodstuffs have had no meaningful oversight in the US, though some in this thread think this is a new thing. There is no premarket testing required, special safety inspections, or anything of the sort. Basically if you have the licenses to sell a tomato, you can genetically engineer a tomato and sell it without any additional requirements. People probably just assume that in the nation of a gazillion regulations, it's a given that genetic engineering would be tightly controlled, regulated, and tested. Welcome to regulatory capture. Beyond that there are several other misleading statements in the letter, in its current state, as well but this is already getting a bit too long. This is just a topic I find incredibly interesting from a sort of social perspective. The interaction between government and corporate influences, how media influences people, and all of these other incredibly interesting issues are all emphasized so well in this one topic - with a wide array of different nations/governments to consider. Just really great stuff. [1] - http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-le...

by Fins 9y ago

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

Actually this is great! Let's look at some data together. The first genetically engineered product was released in 1994. It was called the Flavr Savr Tomato [1]. There are a couple of big points here. The reason this is important is because we can now look at a graph of food availability [2]. You might notice that well before genetic engineering of products was a thing, there was more than bountiful food that was increasing at a steady rate. Genetic engineering has had a negligible impact on this one way or the other. The next point is worldwide share, which gets back to the original post. The primary goal of genetic engineering foodstuffs is profit, and the developed world is where that profit is at. That said the big GMO companies have increasingly started to target the developing world. But that change in direction happened as acreage growth in the developed world began to flatline, and in some cases decline. This [3] is a summary report of GMOs from ISAAA, which is a (pro) GMO advocacy group funded by Monsanto, Bayer, the USDA, and others.You'll note that GMOs are basically a US focused projected, though Brazil and Argentina also have substantial acreage. The whole point here is that GMOs are a product of no necessity. Monsanto is 'feeding a growing population' in the same way that McDonalds is, but at least you know when you're buying a Big Mac. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr [2] - https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/kcalcapitaday-by-world-regions-mg-png https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/... [3] - http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/52/executivesummary/default.asp http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/52/execut...

Fins 9y ago
Oh, sure, there was more than bountiful in the US and Europe. Saying that it was (or is) bountiful in, say, Africa seems to be a stretch. One could think that GMOs appear to be a US-centered because many developing countries, whose export markets are mostly European (i.e. very anti-GMO) are afraid to plant GMO crops for fear of losing those markets. I would presume, in absence of some proof of shenanigans, that 108 Nobel winners [0] had a good idea of safety and necessity of GMOs when they wrote this letter. [0] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nobel-laureates-greenpeace-gmos_us_5774c1a5e4b042fba1cf2b81 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nobel-laureates-greenpe...
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  You're contradicting yourself here. Earlier you implied that without genetically engineered foodstuffs people in developing nations would starve. That belief is common, but obviously entirely wrong. You're now shifting it to developing nations aren't using these products because their exports (which implies a surplus of foods) might be hurt. The site referenced shows where all their data is from, if you find things difficult to believe. You should of course scrutinize all information. Something we all know, but sometimes forget when information confirms our own personal biases. In 1996 Africa's production was already capable of providing in excess of 2300 calories per person per day. It was a matter of distribution. Africa's problems are primarily social. You have to remember that they have something like 1/6th of the world's population but about 60% of the world's arable land. As for your letter, let's consider appeals to authority. In the early 20th century academia and intellectuals in the US were were full-on in favor of state enforced eugenics - and this was a topic they were actively involved in and studying. Hitler actually sited the American 'progress' on this issue as an inspiration. Were they right, because lots of smart people said they were? Or go back to leaded fuel. DuPont and other companies involved that catastrophe had long lists of scientists, experts, and professionals constantly testifying to its safety and necessity. In the past cigarette companies would regularly run ads showing doctors smoking and testifying to the safety of them. Suffice to say, when a company is trying to create an appeal to authority to convey a message - I think we should be particularly critical as it's the weakest form of argument that exists, even if it even qualifies as an argument. But anyhow, back to your letter - Huffington Post as usual was quite confused. The quote "GMOs are extensively tested and subjected to a higher degree of regulatory review than any other crops" is not in the letter that was signed. Here's the actual letter [1]. But the more interesting part is that that statement is of course completely false. People are constantly surprised (see: this thread for examples) that genetically engineered foodstuffs have had no meaningful oversight in the US, though some in this thread think this is a new thing. There is no premarket testing required, special safety inspections, or anything of the sort. Basically if you have the licenses to sell a tomato, you can genetically engineer a tomato and sell it without any additional requirements. People probably just assume that in the nation of a gazillion regulations, it's a given that genetic engineering would be tightly controlled, regulated, and tested. Welcome to regulatory capture. Beyond that there are several other misleading statements in the letter, in its current state, as well but this is already getting a bit too long. This is just a topic I find incredibly interesting from a sort of social perspective. The interaction between government and corporate influences, how media influences people, and all of these other incredibly interesting issues are all emphasized so well in this one topic - with a wide array of different nations/governments to consider. Just really great stuff. [1] - http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-le...