4 ms·

I don't normally downvote comments I read here, but c'mon man. First of all, your comment was off-topic. Second of all, at least with the GM food, yours is a kn

by pvnick 13y ago

I don't normally downvote comments I read here, but c'mon man. First of all, your comment was off-topic. Second of all, at least with the GM food, yours is a knee-jerk reaction unsupported by science. GM food has the potential to save billions (with a B) of lives, starting with Golden Rice.

jussij 13y ago
The biggest problem with GM is it puts the world's food production into the hands of a select few multinational companies. Companies like Monsanto have already shown they are prepared to fight hard to keep control their GM monopolies: http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/monsanto-gmo-roundup-ready-seeds-patents-food-prices/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/monsanto-gmo-roundup-ready-se...
- pvnick 13y ago
  So? That's not a good reason to restrict life-saving technologies.
  - andrewljohnson 13y ago
    The number one thing GMOing is used for is to make seeds resistant to pesticide. So now what Roundup/Monsanto farmers do is spread pesticide over the land, far and wide. The myth is that GMO technology lets us produce high yield crops and mix a caterpillars with bananas to get Butterbananas. But the truth is GMO just lets us engineer soybeans to survive Roundup, and then spray, baby, spray. The end effect of GMO is a stimulus for the pesticide industry, and negative externalities on the environment. That needs to be balanced with whatever crop yields GMO achieves, and it should be understood the crop yields are higher primarily because the bugs are dead, not because we have new super-plants that produce more food per plant.
    - mapt 13y ago
      There is a distinction between positions here: "Being genetically modified always makes the foods inherently unsafe" vs "Being genetically modified cannot make the foods inherently unsafe" Both are wholly incorrect positions to take, and the question is often posed as a false dichotomy between these two options. Attention to mechanism and importantly, to incentive, is going to be essential in any future detente we arrive at... and we will arrive at one, because genetic engineering is only going to get more useful. Categorical prohibition of 'The Monsanto Roundup Ready Gene' and a temporary moratorium on growing GMOs until a resilient process for tradeoff consideration is created would be a much more reasonable process. Personally, I'm in favor of the state establishing high-value labelling requirements, and allowing alternatives. "Made with FDA Certified Pasturized Milk" vs "Made with Uncertified Raw Milk" is one we would appreciate in the US, where the highly nationalized agribusiness sector does not approve of giving us such choices. "Certified Safe Local-Grown GMO" vs "Certified Safe Import-Only GMO" vs "Uncertified GMO" vs no label for natural organisms seems a perfectly fine way of doing things to me.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    The claim that GMO has been responsible for gains in modern food production are most likely false and are more likely the result of traditional breeding techniques: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/study_monsanto_gmo_food_claims_probably_false_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/study_monsanto_gmo_food_clai...
  - 6d0debc071 13y ago
    Yes, it is. If significant numbers of people become dependent upon a single point of failure then whoever controls that gains an incredible degree of power. You have to have some plan for how you're going to spread your risk pool around in that regard or you're just creating a population of slaves.
- mortehu 13y ago
  > Companies like Monsanto have already shown they are prepared to fight hard to keep control their GM monopolies: An analogy: If Microsoft sues someone for selling unlicensed copies of MS PowerPoint, can they be construed to be fighting hard to keep control of their presentation software monopoly?
  - jussij 13y ago
    The big difference is the former is just some crappy software, while the latter is about control of the world's food supply. Given the choice of a world fed on GMO seeds, controlled by multi-nationals, rammed down our throats by governments with their own secret agendas, or the good old fashion natural seeds, I'll take the later any day.
    - pvnick 13y ago
      Fine, then don't buy them. But don't be a hypocrite and restrict their access from others who may be too poor to buy organic.
      - jussij 13y ago
        > Fine, then don't buy them If they have a monopoly you no longer have that choice. The 'big four' biotech seed companies—Monsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences own 80% of the US corn market and 70% of the soybean business. They are looking to achieve similar results in the rest of thw world. The US government went after Microsoft because it was seen as a monopoly in the PC market. Why doesn't the US government step in to stop this GOM monopoly?
        spc476 13y ago
        The US government has always realized that monopolies can come to be "naturally" (that is, through normal market forces) in an industry. The US government over goes after a monopolist when they attempt to enter or influence a different market by exploiting their monopoly. The US government didn't go against Standard Oil because they owned 90% of the refineries in the US, they went after Standard Oil because Standard Oil was using their 90% oil refinery market share to control the rail shipping industry. The US government didn't go against Microsoft because they owned 90% of the PC operating system market, they went after Microsoft because Microsoft was using their 90% operating system market to control the web browser market (along with some other sub-computer markets). Why isn't the US government going against Monsanto (for instance?) Because they aren't trying to gain control of another industry outside agriculture (or better lobbyists, take your pick).
- blhack 13y ago
  Oh yes that monsanto case that gets trotted out every freaking time this comes up. The poor farmer didn't know he was using roundup ready seeds...and yet somehow also decided to use roundup on his crops anyway! Except he did know that he was using roundup ready seeds, and thought he was exploiting a loophole. Turns out he was wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.#Backgrou... This is absolutely not a case of big evilco going against the little guy.
gst 13y ago
The problem is not allowing or disallowing GM food, but the strict labeling requirements in the EU. If there's GM involved it must be labeled accordingly. Unrelated to if oppposing GM food is a "knee-jerk" reaction or not, the labeling requirement is a good thing, as it gives the consumer the choice which type of food he prefers. The trade agreement would weaken those labeling requirements, which is the main source for concerns here.
DominikR 13y ago
We certainly don't need to save millions of lives in the EU with Golden Rice. It is just a fact that most European countries are in strong opposition to genetically modified food. I wouldn't eat that either, and I do not even want it to be sold here.
tomp 13y ago
It's not supported by science either. You would need at least 100 years to study the effect of GM foods on the long-term well-being of people.
- cheald 13y ago
  Well, worst case, it helps to solve our overpopulation problem. /s

by pvnick 13y ago

jussij 13y ago

The biggest problem with GM is it puts the world's food production into the hands of a select few multinational companies. Companies like Monsanto have already shown they are prepared to fight hard to keep control their GM monopolies: http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/monsanto-gmo-roundup-ready-seeds-patents-food-prices/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/monsanto-gmo-roundup-ready-se...

pvnick 13y ago
So? That's not a good reason to restrict life-saving technologies.
- andrewljohnson 13y ago
  The number one thing GMOing is used for is to make seeds resistant to pesticide. So now what Roundup/Monsanto farmers do is spread pesticide over the land, far and wide. The myth is that GMO technology lets us produce high yield crops and mix a caterpillars with bananas to get Butterbananas. But the truth is GMO just lets us engineer soybeans to survive Roundup, and then spray, baby, spray. The end effect of GMO is a stimulus for the pesticide industry, and negative externalities on the environment. That needs to be balanced with whatever crop yields GMO achieves, and it should be understood the crop yields are higher primarily because the bugs are dead, not because we have new super-plants that produce more food per plant.
  - mapt 13y ago
    There is a distinction between positions here: "Being genetically modified always makes the foods inherently unsafe" vs "Being genetically modified cannot make the foods inherently unsafe" Both are wholly incorrect positions to take, and the question is often posed as a false dichotomy between these two options. Attention to mechanism and importantly, to incentive, is going to be essential in any future detente we arrive at... and we will arrive at one, because genetic engineering is only going to get more useful. Categorical prohibition of 'The Monsanto Roundup Ready Gene' and a temporary moratorium on growing GMOs until a resilient process for tradeoff consideration is created would be a much more reasonable process. Personally, I'm in favor of the state establishing high-value labelling requirements, and allowing alternatives. "Made with FDA Certified Pasturized Milk" vs "Made with Uncertified Raw Milk" is one we would appreciate in the US, where the highly nationalized agribusiness sector does not approve of giving us such choices. "Certified Safe Local-Grown GMO" vs "Certified Safe Import-Only GMO" vs "Uncertified GMO" vs no label for natural organisms seems a perfectly fine way of doing things to me.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  The claim that GMO has been responsible for gains in modern food production are most likely false and are more likely the result of traditional breeding techniques: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/study_monsanto_gmo_food_claims_probably_false_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/study_monsanto_gmo_food_clai...
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  Yes, it is. If significant numbers of people become dependent upon a single point of failure then whoever controls that gains an incredible degree of power. You have to have some plan for how you're going to spread your risk pool around in that regard or you're just creating a population of slaves.
mortehu 13y ago
> Companies like Monsanto have already shown they are prepared to fight hard to keep control their GM monopolies: An analogy: If Microsoft sues someone for selling unlicensed copies of MS PowerPoint, can they be construed to be fighting hard to keep control of their presentation software monopoly?
- jussij 13y ago
  The big difference is the former is just some crappy software, while the latter is about control of the world's food supply. Given the choice of a world fed on GMO seeds, controlled by multi-nationals, rammed down our throats by governments with their own secret agendas, or the good old fashion natural seeds, I'll take the later any day.
  - pvnick 13y ago
    Fine, then don't buy them. But don't be a hypocrite and restrict their access from others who may be too poor to buy organic.
    - jussij 13y ago
      > Fine, then don't buy them If they have a monopoly you no longer have that choice. The 'big four' biotech seed companies—Monsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences own 80% of the US corn market and 70% of the soybean business. They are looking to achieve similar results in the rest of thw world. The US government went after Microsoft because it was seen as a monopoly in the PC market. Why doesn't the US government step in to stop this GOM monopoly?
      - spc476 13y ago
        The US government has always realized that monopolies can come to be "naturally" (that is, through normal market forces) in an industry. The US government over goes after a monopolist when they attempt to enter or influence a different market by exploiting their monopoly. The US government didn't go against Standard Oil because they owned 90% of the refineries in the US, they went after Standard Oil because Standard Oil was using their 90% oil refinery market share to control the rail shipping industry. The US government didn't go against Microsoft because they owned 90% of the PC operating system market, they went after Microsoft because Microsoft was using their 90% operating system market to control the web browser market (along with some other sub-computer markets). Why isn't the US government going against Monsanto (for instance?) Because they aren't trying to gain control of another industry outside agriculture (or better lobbyists, take your pick).
blhack 13y ago
Oh yes that monsanto case that gets trotted out every freaking time this comes up. The poor farmer didn't know he was using roundup ready seeds...and yet somehow also decided to use roundup on his crops anyway! Except he did know that he was using roundup ready seeds, and thought he was exploiting a loophole. Turns out he was wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.#Backgrou... This is absolutely not a case of big evilco going against the little guy.

gst 13y ago

The problem is not allowing or disallowing GM food, but the strict labeling requirements in the EU. If there's GM involved it must be labeled accordingly. Unrelated to if oppposing GM food is a "knee-jerk" reaction or not, the labeling requirement is a good thing, as it gives the consumer the choice which type of food he prefers. The trade agreement would weaken those labeling requirements, which is the main source for concerns here.

DominikR 13y ago

We certainly don't need to save millions of lives in the EU with Golden Rice. It is just a fact that most European countries are in strong opposition to genetically modified food. I wouldn't eat that either, and I do not even want it to be sold here.

tomp 13y ago

It's not supported by science either. You would need at least 100 years to study the effect of GM foods on the long-term well-being of people.

cheald 13y ago
Well, worst case, it helps to solve our overpopulation problem. /s