4 ms·

I believed Scientific American was a scientific magazine. Instead I find this as a shill article complete void of data or any other information whatsoever. It

I believed Scientific American was a scientific magazine. Instead I find this as a shill article complete void of data or any other information whatsoever. It seems like a paid placement article for me. In science "you don't trust anything", you make experiments and get data. Personally I am fine with GMO provided 1 thing: You label your food as GMO, and then if people decide they want to be guinea pigs of new developments with their own money so be it. But they don't want letting people to choose. In the US you can't choose. As the article says "hey, it is making Monsanto lots of money so it is very good".

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
qwatsi13579 13y ago
You can assume that all food has GMOs unless it's labeled as organic. Is that not sufficient?
- kazagistar 13y ago
  It means it costs producers a lot of money to not be labeled as GMO, making GMO default. That seems silly. I really don't see the problem with labeling GMO foods.
  - qwatsi13579 13y ago
    Actually, it would cost food manufacturers a lot more than otherwise since the majority of food would have to be labeled.
    - kazagistar 13y ago
      The costs I was speaking of have nothing to do with actual labeling, but certification.
maratd 13y ago
> Instead I find this as a shill article complete void of data or any other information whatsoever. I don't see any data in your comment either. Shall we classify it as a shill as well? It's pretty clear that the article has a single argument. We have been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years and there is no fundamental difference between what we're doing now and what we did before, other than the tools we're using to do it. How can you provide data for that? > You label your food as GMO ... In the US you can't choose WholeFoods is advertising all over their paper bags that they will begin doing this. That said, everything consumed by human beings in the last few thousand years is GMO. Especially our livestock, which has been forced down an evolutionary path that is not sustainable in nature in the slightest. If we become extinct for whatever reason, you will not find chickens and cows roaming about. They will be gone and they will be gone very quickly.
- pigscantfly 13y ago
  I think that some breeds of cow, at least, would be able to survive a human extinction event. You would see rapid adaptation in the population, though, so maybe we could rephrase your observation to: "If we become extinct for whatever reason, you will not find recognizable chickens and cows roaming about."
- malyk 13y ago
  > That said, everything consumed by human beings in the last few thousand years is GMO. And most people in the anti/label-GMO movement know this an acknowledge that to be the case and love that. What they DON'T love is the intentional irradiation/gene gun/cross species GM techniques that have been employed in the last 30ish years. On an evolutionary scale there hasn't been enough time to determine if modern GM crops (specifically the cross species variety) are deleterious or not. That's where the concern lies.
  - maratd 13y ago
    > On an evolutionary scale there hasn't been enough time to determine if modern GM crops (specifically the cross species variety) are deleterious or not. I agree and what we need is version control. If at a later time we do find that we went down the wrong path, we should be able to revert to a prior state with a click of a button. I would be quite shocked if Monsanto and the others weren't sequencing all of their products, in all of their iterations. That will allow us to revert to a previous state if necessary.
zsombor 13y ago
Would you expect the same labeling be placed on all varieties obtained by induced random mutations? Or even better would you require all food items to have their genes completely sequenced? Have them certified by independent organizations that the sequences are identical to what you had 5 years ago? Have it done on all apples for example, as it is possible that one particular flower suffered a mutation thanks to random cosmic rays? Would expect not. The very act of labeling suggests the produce to be inferior. Instead of choice it merely perpetuates the unscientific view.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

qwatsi13579 13y ago

You can assume that all food has GMOs unless it's labeled as organic. Is that not sufficient?

kazagistar 13y ago
It means it costs producers a lot of money to not be labeled as GMO, making GMO default. That seems silly. I really don't see the problem with labeling GMO foods.
- qwatsi13579 13y ago
  Actually, it would cost food manufacturers a lot more than otherwise since the majority of food would have to be labeled.
  - kazagistar 13y ago
    The costs I was speaking of have nothing to do with actual labeling, but certification.

maratd 13y ago

> Instead I find this as a shill article complete void of data or any other information whatsoever. I don't see any data in your comment either. Shall we classify it as a shill as well? It's pretty clear that the article has a single argument. We have been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years and there is no fundamental difference between what we're doing now and what we did before, other than the tools we're using to do it. How can you provide data for that? > You label your food as GMO ... In the US you can't choose WholeFoods is advertising all over their paper bags that they will begin doing this. That said, everything consumed by human beings in the last few thousand years is GMO. Especially our livestock, which has been forced down an evolutionary path that is not sustainable in nature in the slightest. If we become extinct for whatever reason, you will not find chickens and cows roaming about. They will be gone and they will be gone very quickly.

pigscantfly 13y ago
I think that some breeds of cow, at least, would be able to survive a human extinction event. You would see rapid adaptation in the population, though, so maybe we could rephrase your observation to: "If we become extinct for whatever reason, you will not find recognizable chickens and cows roaming about."
malyk 13y ago
> That said, everything consumed by human beings in the last few thousand years is GMO. And most people in the anti/label-GMO movement know this an acknowledge that to be the case and love that. What they DON'T love is the intentional irradiation/gene gun/cross species GM techniques that have been employed in the last 30ish years. On an evolutionary scale there hasn't been enough time to determine if modern GM crops (specifically the cross species variety) are deleterious or not. That's where the concern lies.
- maratd 13y ago
  > On an evolutionary scale there hasn't been enough time to determine if modern GM crops (specifically the cross species variety) are deleterious or not. I agree and what we need is version control. If at a later time we do find that we went down the wrong path, we should be able to revert to a prior state with a click of a button. I would be quite shocked if Monsanto and the others weren't sequencing all of their products, in all of their iterations. That will allow us to revert to a previous state if necessary.

zsombor 13y ago

Would you expect the same labeling be placed on all varieties obtained by induced random mutations? Or even better would you require all food items to have their genes completely sequenced? Have them certified by independent organizations that the sequences are identical to what you had 5 years ago? Have it done on all apples for example, as it is possible that one particular flower suffered a mutation thanks to random cosmic rays? Would expect not. The very act of labeling suggests the produce to be inferior. Instead of choice it merely perpetuates the unscientific view.