5 ms·

There are scientific, fact based reasons to be skeptical of GMOs: - Intellectual property concerns - Biodiversity concerns - Glyphosate-tolerant modification

There are scientific, fact based reasons to be skeptical of GMOs: - Intellectual property concerns - Biodiversity concerns - Glyphosate-tolerant modifications leading to higher pesticide usage Blanket opposition to GMOs is silly, there's no real difference between selective breeding and scientific modification - but GMOs haven't yielded only positive results.

sethherr 7y ago
... which is to say, anti-GMO people aren't the same as Flat-earthers, anti-vaxers, and climate change deniers, who all reject science and reason.
- luc4sdreyer 7y ago
  All of them deny the scientific consensus because it clashes with their ideology. That's not to say they're _same_, e.g. Flat-earthers probably harm society less than anti-vaxers. The consensus regarding GMO safety is solid, but I find a lot of people are immune to it for some reason. A great example of the damage that anti-GMO people cause is the opposition to Golden rice. Vitamin A deficiency kills an estimated 670,000 children every year under the age of 5 and cause an additional 500,000 cases of irreversible childhood blindness. Most of these areas have conventional Vitamin A fortification programs, but they obviously don't work. Golden rice is a strain of rice that was genetically modified to produce vitamin A (technically beta-carotene, which is humans convert to vitamin A). It's free to plant non-commercially. It was developed by universities and other publicly funded organizations. It's approved for human consumption by the FDA, as well as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Yet Greenpeace and others oppose it, claiming it will open the door to more widespread use of GMOs. They would rather have 500 thousand children die per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
ncmncm 7y ago
"pesticide": probably you mean "herbicide". There is also the problem of pesticides that, previously, were only on the skins of fruits, and able to be washed off, now being produced by the plant and so laced throughout. Incidentally, probably most of the glyphosate in our diet comes from seeds of plants killed with it -- e.g. oats, chickpeas -- and not resistant. It's tragic that abuses of GM techniques generate opposition that interferes with adoption of carotene-producing ("yellow") rice.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
>but GMOs haven't yielded only positive results. Neither have vaccines, in 1999 the rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn because of reports of intussusception. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5334a3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5334a3.htm . However, on the whole, the safety and efficacy of vaccines and their life-saving nature has been shown in study after study and there is scientific consensus that the benefits outweigh the risks. The same with GMO. Just like vaccines, there are risks and they will require regulation. However, study after study has shown that the benefits outweigh the risks, and there is scientific consensus on the issue. In addition, GMO opposition does actively harm people. An example is the opposition to Golden Rice which would significantly reduce Vitamin A deficiency worldwide. From http://www.goldenrice.org/ http://www.goldenrice.org/: >For biofortification alone GMO technology can deliver high folate rice (mothers’ dietary deficiency causes birth defects), high zinc and high iron rice (dietary deficiency impedes mental development). Similarly, GMO Golden Rice provides a source of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is an immune deficiency syndrome, so children die of common infections. It is also the main cause of irreversible childhood blindness. Golden Rice has been accepted as safe for consumption by the Governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA, and registrations have been applied for in Philippines and Bangladesh. Yet, significantly due to rejection of science by activists, Golden Rice is not yet available to farmers and their communities as an additional intervention for vitamin A deficiency. And neither high folate rice, nor high iron rice, nor high zinc rice, nor Golden Rice could be developed without the use of GMO-technology. Based on the above, it is logical to group anti-GMO opposition in with anti-vaxxers as people that reject science and endanger the health of humans.
btilly 7y ago
If you believe the science, being opposed to GMOs is being in favor of mass starvation. See https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/unfairly-demonized-gmo-crops-can-help-fight-malnutrition/ https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/unfairly... for some of that information. Also note that separate lines of research show that higher CO2 results in crops growing faster, but having fewer nutrients. And therefore GMOs are our best hope of having not just enough food, but food that compensates for CO2 increases.
- FrozenVoid 7y ago
  These GM plants are a tiny(and mostly exclusive to third-world) minority of the market, most of which is pesticide resistant or pesticide producing crops. Its like arguing that cars(all GM crops) are great and save us from global warming because electric cars(nutrient rich GM crops) exist.
  - FrozenVoid 7y ago
    Additionally, these(for GM crop) pesticides/herbicides are sprayed in such quantities they violate chemical limits in foods. https://www.salon.com/2019/07/14/corporations-can-legally-put-carcinogens-in-our-food-without-warning-labels-heres-why/ https://www.salon.com/2019/07/14/corporations-can-legally-pu...
luc4sdreyer 7y ago
> - Glyphosate-tolerant modifications leading to higher pesticide usage That might be true, but Glyphosate is less toxic than the alternatives, so the overall effect is positive: > On balance, herbicide-resistant GM crops are less damaging to the environment than conventional crops grown at industrial scale. A study by PG Economics, a consulting firm in Dorchester, UK, found that the introduction of herbicide-tolerant cotton saved 15.5 million kilograms of herbicide between 1996 and 2011, a 6.1% reduction from what would have been used on conventional cotton. And GM crop technology delivered an 8.9% improvement to the environmental impact quotient — a measure that considers factors such as pesticide toxicity to wildlife — says Graham Brookes, co-director of PG Economics and a co-author of the industry-funded study, which many scientists consider to be among the field’s most extensive and authoritative assessments of environmental impacts. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-...

sethherr 7y ago

... which is to say, anti-GMO people aren't the same as Flat-earthers, anti-vaxers, and climate change deniers, who all reject science and reason.

luc4sdreyer 7y ago
All of them deny the scientific consensus because it clashes with their ideology. That's not to say they're _same_, e.g. Flat-earthers probably harm society less than anti-vaxers. The consensus regarding GMO safety is solid, but I find a lot of people are immune to it for some reason. A great example of the damage that anti-GMO people cause is the opposition to Golden rice. Vitamin A deficiency kills an estimated 670,000 children every year under the age of 5 and cause an additional 500,000 cases of irreversible childhood blindness. Most of these areas have conventional Vitamin A fortification programs, but they obviously don't work. Golden rice is a strain of rice that was genetically modified to produce vitamin A (technically beta-carotene, which is humans convert to vitamin A). It's free to plant non-commercially. It was developed by universities and other publicly funded organizations. It's approved for human consumption by the FDA, as well as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Yet Greenpeace and others oppose it, claiming it will open the door to more widespread use of GMOs. They would rather have 500 thousand children die per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

ncmncm 7y ago

"pesticide": probably you mean "herbicide". There is also the problem of pesticides that, previously, were only on the skins of fruits, and able to be washed off, now being produced by the plant and so laced throughout. Incidentally, probably most of the glyphosate in our diet comes from seeds of plants killed with it -- e.g. oats, chickpeas -- and not resistant. It's tragic that abuses of GM techniques generate opposition that interferes with adoption of carotene-producing ("yellow") rice.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

>but GMOs haven't yielded only positive results. Neither have vaccines, in 1999 the rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn because of reports of intussusception. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5334a3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5334a3.htm . However, on the whole, the safety and efficacy of vaccines and their life-saving nature has been shown in study after study and there is scientific consensus that the benefits outweigh the risks. The same with GMO. Just like vaccines, there are risks and they will require regulation. However, study after study has shown that the benefits outweigh the risks, and there is scientific consensus on the issue. In addition, GMO opposition does actively harm people. An example is the opposition to Golden Rice which would significantly reduce Vitamin A deficiency worldwide. From http://www.goldenrice.org/ http://www.goldenrice.org/: >For biofortification alone GMO technology can deliver high folate rice (mothers’ dietary deficiency causes birth defects), high zinc and high iron rice (dietary deficiency impedes mental development). Similarly, GMO Golden Rice provides a source of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is an immune deficiency syndrome, so children die of common infections. It is also the main cause of irreversible childhood blindness. Golden Rice has been accepted as safe for consumption by the Governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA, and registrations have been applied for in Philippines and Bangladesh. Yet, significantly due to rejection of science by activists, Golden Rice is not yet available to farmers and their communities as an additional intervention for vitamin A deficiency. And neither high folate rice, nor high iron rice, nor high zinc rice, nor Golden Rice could be developed without the use of GMO-technology. Based on the above, it is logical to group anti-GMO opposition in with anti-vaxxers as people that reject science and endanger the health of humans.

btilly 7y ago

If you believe the science, being opposed to GMOs is being in favor of mass starvation. See https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/unfairly-demonized-gmo-crops-can-help-fight-malnutrition/ https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/unfairly... for some of that information. Also note that separate lines of research show that higher CO2 results in crops growing faster, but having fewer nutrients. And therefore GMOs are our best hope of having not just enough food, but food that compensates for CO2 increases.

FrozenVoid 7y ago
These GM plants are a tiny(and mostly exclusive to third-world) minority of the market, most of which is pesticide resistant or pesticide producing crops. Its like arguing that cars(all GM crops) are great and save us from global warming because electric cars(nutrient rich GM crops) exist.
- FrozenVoid 7y ago
  Additionally, these(for GM crop) pesticides/herbicides are sprayed in such quantities they violate chemical limits in foods. https://www.salon.com/2019/07/14/corporations-can-legally-put-carcinogens-in-our-food-without-warning-labels-heres-why/ https://www.salon.com/2019/07/14/corporations-can-legally-pu...

luc4sdreyer 7y ago

> - Glyphosate-tolerant modifications leading to higher pesticide usage That might be true, but Glyphosate is less toxic than the alternatives, so the overall effect is positive: > On balance, herbicide-resistant GM crops are less damaging to the environment than conventional crops grown at industrial scale. A study by PG Economics, a consulting firm in Dorchester, UK, found that the introduction of herbicide-tolerant cotton saved 15.5 million kilograms of herbicide between 1996 and 2011, a 6.1% reduction from what would have been used on conventional cotton. And GM crop technology delivered an 8.9% improvement to the environmental impact quotient — a measure that considers factors such as pesticide toxicity to wildlife — says Graham Brookes, co-director of PG Economics and a co-author of the industry-funded study, which many scientists consider to be among the field’s most extensive and authoritative assessments of environmental impacts. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-...