in other good news, GMO labeling loses in OR and CO

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

politicus is a GMO truther, pay him no mind.

GMO's have changed politicus's gender? More dangerous than I ever thought!

Basically the one thing I'll say about GMO's is they are hardly worse than conventional agriculture; but as ever the techno-utopian brigade never cease to amuse.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

GMO labeling should probably be done at the federal level, if it is done at all.

politicus is a GMO truther, pay him no mind.

GMO's have changed politicus's gender? More dangerous than I ever thought!

Basically the one thing I'll say about GMO's is they are hardly worse than conventional agriculture; but as ever the techno-utopian brigade never cease to amuse.

I would extend that further and say that GMOs are hardly different from conventional agriculture, for better or worse.

Ah yes, I would agree ... but I was trying to imply that conventional agriculture is also not inherently safe, and the false dichotomy of "safe 'natural' seeds" vs. "spooky unnatural GMO's", is an all too common false dichotomy.

To release a new GMO product, extremely (well, relatively) stringent regulations are enforced to ensure they pose no risk to humans (the major worry is that the inserted gene also codes for an allergen). I have no problem with this - indeed one of the first major GM crops deregulated (virus resistant papaya) potentially could have been a f[Inks]ing disaster, because the Department of Agriculture released it rather prematurely - while tests were still ongoing, IIRC.

But "natural" techniques of altering the genome remain a completely deregulated free-for-all. That concerns me frankly. In many ways (apart from the inherent danger involved with allergenics) non-transgenic organisms pose a greater risk than GMO's, because this is genetic manipulation with a blindfold, while the GMO industry - for its flaws - knows what it's doing for the most part.

That said: I don't like transgenics being used in cash crops and I certainly don't like engineering pathogenic resistant crops, which is basically a stupid genetic arms race. I also support the much maligned "Terminator" seeds.

I'm not very happy with this post, because I feel like I have a lot to say about agriculture in general, but my mind is swimming at the moment. Maybe later.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ideally there would be complete transparency over foods. I think it's unhealthy as a society to treat food production as some unfathomable black box industry, seeing as agriculture is both the most a) essential and b) problematic economic sector. I think, broadly, I support this only on a federal scale though - it is very problematic to have a piecemeal approach to this issue.

GM is extremely unfairly maligned, mainly due to the bastards that produce GM seeds and the inherent fear of the novel. I'd certainly trust some GM crops over some of the "non-transgenic-but-rather-screwed-up" crops that are completely unregulated because the category of "essentially all food" is much too scary for activists to take on, preferring the easy targets like

@MB. People do like to trot out the "peer-reviewed research" line and they are absolutely right - but for one brutal flaw. No GM crop is the same as the other. Most are harmless, and probably better than the sort of crap sold as "organic". Perhaps they are less necessary than its bright-eyed proponents declare, but are essentially standard crops. But no GM crop is the same as the other - and just because every GM crop out there so far is OK, does not mean everything is awesome in the GMO world. A lot of (sane) anti-GMO's are not concerned about genetic modification, per se. (As I said the sane ones, not the "OMG FRANKENFOODS!!!" types that Green parties like to whip up on these sort of debates. No, they're concerned about the world that surrounds GMO's.

I've talked about the DoA prematurely releasing GM papaya earlier this thread, which was annoyingly ignored because everyone finds it much more enjoyable to call each other morons (the comparisons with nuclear power are breathtaking). Luckily for GMO company's PR manager, it was safe - but it is a warning about the dangers of being doey eyed about "scientific advancement". And even in infancy the GMO industry has been remarkably non-transparent and arrogant, with the government providing rather arbitrary regulations. It's not a good start.

GMO's are not inherently evil, and they certainly aren't inherently good. The decision to use GMO's should come down to one thing (and my opinion on the matter consistently fluctuates depending on the time of day): are they necessary to feed all the people currently projected to be living on the planet. Not profits on cash crops. (excepting plastic-producing GM crops which are fantastic). Not because "it's progress and that means it's good, because progress is good".

It is difficult to underestimate the danger approaching the field of agriculture, especially if current trends continue. The world population is increasing, the amount of arable land is decreasing and the rapid increase in productivity associated with the Green Revolution is at a standstill. GM proponents say that their techniques are the only way to counteract this disturbing trend, but I've never seen evidence that GM crops are necessary - especially considering the many, many (i hate to use this word, as agriculture is inherently an unnatural activity) more "natural" (please forgive me for using that horrific word non-ironically!) ways to increase productivity, decrease demand (no, not eugenics), push efficiency and also limit land use/decrease environmental devastation.

TL/DR : Don't hate the crops, hate the players; GM proponents need to focus on less arguing with nutcases and more on the supposed need for the bridge they're selling.