6 ms·

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

by 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...
- Fins 9y ago
  People in the developing world do starve, actually. And if in some instances (i.e. Zimbabwe) reasons are mostly political, in many places arable land isn't exactly abundant, and climate isn't ideal for growing crops. Improving irrigation etc. would improve yields even without GMOs, but given the economic realities of those countries it is a less feasible option. Also, there is no contradiction between selling some crops on export markets and not having enough food for internal ones. These could be different crops for one, and for another, farmers need to make some money, too. It is not surprising that HuffPo would get confused about anything that smells of science, I would think that an opinion of a large number of Nobel laureates is as good as appeals to authority go. While they might be wrong (although conflating them with paid-for doctors advertising cigarettes seems rather disingenuous). At the very least I would expect some well-designed studies showing some negative effects of GMOs, not arguments ad hitlerium or that Monsanto might make a profit. By itself I do not see how it is a bad thing, unless it can be shown that they are trying to hide known dangers.
  - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
    There are neither inherent negative effects nor positive effectives of genetically engineered foodstuffs. GMOs themselves are just a class of invention, which is why their conflation as a thing in and of themselves is so inappropriate. And so one must consider each and every GMO on a case by case basis, which is exactly the opposite of what we're doing. And this leads to the next problem. Genetically engineered products are patented inventions that come with a litany of terms and conditions on their usage. Among the terms Monsanto includes is that their seeds cannot be used for public research without specific permission from the company. [1] There was also an editorial on this here [2]. In other words most of every study you've seen on Monsanto products has been rubber stamped by Monsanto. There couldn't be a conflict of interest there, could there? As an aside Monsanto in turn then uses this bias to create appeals to authority. When new work is done that does cast their product in a negative light they then immediately appeal to the quantity of their 'approved' work to try to discredit the new work by authority alone. It's like arguing that the Sun must indeed revolve around the Earth because we have 200 years of science showing it does! Again, anytime you see an appeal to authority - I think it should make you rather curious about why somebody would go this route. And there's also the issue of retaliation. The examples on the individual level are extensive, but let's consider how this goes all the way to the top in large part thanks to Monsanto's extreme success in we'll say 'influencing' the US government. Here's a quote: "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory." What is that from? That was a response, proposed in a confidential US cable, to a retaliation against a grievous act from France. What was France's decision? The heinous and unspeakable act of ceasing cultivation of Monsanto Corn!!! The exact tactics vary, but in general themes this is very similar to how leaded fuel persisted as long as it did. Similarly with CFCs. And again there are also plentiful other issues and themes in play here, but I'm trying to avoid writing a novel! [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies... [2] - http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-guriansherman-seeds-20110213 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-gurian... [3] - https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html

by Fins 9y ago

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...

Fins 9y ago
People in the developing world do starve, actually. And if in some instances (i.e. Zimbabwe) reasons are mostly political, in many places arable land isn't exactly abundant, and climate isn't ideal for growing crops. Improving irrigation etc. would improve yields even without GMOs, but given the economic realities of those countries it is a less feasible option. Also, there is no contradiction between selling some crops on export markets and not having enough food for internal ones. These could be different crops for one, and for another, farmers need to make some money, too. It is not surprising that HuffPo would get confused about anything that smells of science, I would think that an opinion of a large number of Nobel laureates is as good as appeals to authority go. While they might be wrong (although conflating them with paid-for doctors advertising cigarettes seems rather disingenuous). At the very least I would expect some well-designed studies showing some negative effects of GMOs, not arguments ad hitlerium or that Monsanto might make a profit. By itself I do not see how it is a bad thing, unless it can be shown that they are trying to hide known dangers.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  There are neither inherent negative effects nor positive effectives of genetically engineered foodstuffs. GMOs themselves are just a class of invention, which is why their conflation as a thing in and of themselves is so inappropriate. And so one must consider each and every GMO on a case by case basis, which is exactly the opposite of what we're doing. And this leads to the next problem. Genetically engineered products are patented inventions that come with a litany of terms and conditions on their usage. Among the terms Monsanto includes is that their seeds cannot be used for public research without specific permission from the company. [1] There was also an editorial on this here [2]. In other words most of every study you've seen on Monsanto products has been rubber stamped by Monsanto. There couldn't be a conflict of interest there, could there? As an aside Monsanto in turn then uses this bias to create appeals to authority. When new work is done that does cast their product in a negative light they then immediately appeal to the quantity of their 'approved' work to try to discredit the new work by authority alone. It's like arguing that the Sun must indeed revolve around the Earth because we have 200 years of science showing it does! Again, anytime you see an appeal to authority - I think it should make you rather curious about why somebody would go this route. And there's also the issue of retaliation. The examples on the individual level are extensive, but let's consider how this goes all the way to the top in large part thanks to Monsanto's extreme success in we'll say 'influencing' the US government. Here's a quote: "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory." What is that from? That was a response, proposed in a confidential US cable, to a retaliation against a grievous act from France. What was France's decision? The heinous and unspeakable act of ceasing cultivation of Monsanto Corn!!! The exact tactics vary, but in general themes this is very similar to how leaded fuel persisted as long as it did. Similarly with CFCs. And again there are also plentiful other issues and themes in play here, but I'm trying to avoid writing a novel! [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies... [2] - http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-guriansherman-seeds-20110213 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-gurian... [3] - https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html