Vermont gmo label law starts today

[ag]

If a simpler solution is available, then choose that. The golden rice scenario is a good example: there is a problem (Vitamin A deficiency in the Thirld World) but it's worth investigating why that problem exists before throwing accusations back and forth to one another.

It is a simple and elegant solution. What is the problem?

The main question is, hy, given all the variety of breeding and selection methodes, is a small group chosen, based pretty much on no scientific criterion whatsoever, to be "scary and complicated", whereas many others - some of them equally easy to describe in apocalyptic mad scientist terms - are not?

In any case, I would really insist that none of these anti-GMO types in the future say a word about global warming or evolution (unless, of course, they are deniers). Scientific consensus is either to be respected or not.

[ingemann]

Remember people, transgenics is merely a tool. It should not be condemned out of hand, but each transgenic organism should be considered on its own merits against relatively simple technologies and investments (like for example, the huge amount of waste produced by the logistics of food production)

I have nothing against GMO, but the way they're used in farming is at best a a net negative and at worst dangerous.

[ag]

Remember people, transgenics is merely a tool. It should not be condemned out of hand, but each transgenic organism should be considered on its own merits against relatively simple technologies and investments (like for example, the huge amount of waste produced by the logistics of food production)

I have nothing against GMO, but the way they're used in farming is at best a a net negative and at worst dangerous.

Then complain about a particular practice, and not about GMO. I mean, calculus has been used in artillery since... forever. Cannons kill people. Let us prohibit parabolas.

[ag]

The burden of proof is on the people who want something to change. They want GMO foods labeled. Why?

Because of health risks? Research has indicated there are none. Because of ethical reasons? They haven't articulated any, and in fact GMOs have saved countless lives around the world.

The only answer there seems to be is "Because the idea of GMOs makes me feel icky" and that's not a reason to burden the products with something that is essentially designed to make them sell less.

That GMOs have 'saved countless lives around the world' is a lie put out by Monsanto and other large agricultural companies. You can probably count on one hand the number of lives saved by GMOs.

Technical they may be correct, as many ingredients in medical products are produces with GMO modified organism, of course this have nothing to do with anything Monsanto have produced. So it's a good example of lying while saying the truth.

I would say that this post is an excellent example of the dishonesty of anti-GMO campaigners. You know full well that GMO techniques have been extremely useful, but you
choose a particular company (which, for good or for bad you accuse of nasty practices) to taint the entire field. If this is not deliberate dishonesty, I do not know what is.

[ag]

Anything of nutritional, health, or biological interest.

About most things in the store you could, probably, produce a volume of 300 pages with information of greater nutritional, health, or biological interest than the "GMO" (which is of no nutritional or health interest at all, and is misleading biologically). Would you suggest that every apple should be accompanied by a history of its breeding/selection/hybridisation, etc.?

As I said above, anything that makes people realise that agriculture isn't some mysterious black box process would help.

So, which other things would you like lables to be put about? Hybridization? (Undirected) chemical/radiological mutations? Selection for harmful (from the standpoint of the plant or animal) mutations? Make you proposal!

[ingemann]

If a simpler solution is available, then choose that. The golden rice scenario is a good example: there is a problem (Vitamin A deficiency in the Thirld World) but it's worth investigating why that problem exists before throwing accusations back and forth to one another.

Golden Rice is actually an excellent example of the dishonesty of Monsanto and the other Agricultural companies.

They promised this more than 20 years ago now and I'm not aware if they actually ended up producing anything, they hadn't the last time I looked into this two or three years ago.

Golden Rice was clearly used as propaganda to guilt trip people who opposed GMOs for rational or irrational reasons:  "If you oppose GMOs you're putting hundreds of thousands of poor people to death."

That's about as cynical and sleazy as it gets.

The idea that Monsanto or the other companies would spend significant money researching GMOs to make more/healthier food for poor people around the world is laughable given that these poor people can't afford to buy GMO food in the first place.

Completely agree, there's also the fact that modifying a crop often comes at a price of something else. Maize with a more protein may come at the price of fewer calories or that it pull more nitrate out of the soil, radical changing how the plant should be used or demaning a increased fertilising.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we have seen increased yield, but among modern western farms, which can afford pesticides and fertiliser. The poor African peasant people love to use as example have seen little benefit. In fact with the world having a food surplus and western output flooding the poor markets, I doubt (in fact I know it doesn't) it benefit the poor African peasant, that western countries flood the market with more cheap agricultural output

[136or142]

If a simpler solution is available, then choose that. The golden rice scenario is a good example: there is a problem (Vitamin A deficiency in the Thirld World) but it's worth investigating why that problem exists before throwing accusations back and forth to one another.

It is a simple and elegant solution. What is the problem?

The main question is, hy, given all the variety of breeding and selection methodes, is a small group chosen, based pretty much on no scientific criterion whatsoever, to be "scary and complicated", whereas many others - some of them equally easy to describe in apocalyptic mad scientist terms - are not?

In any case, I would really insist that none of these anti-GMO types in the future say a word about global warming or evolution (unless, of course, they are deniers). Scientific consensus is either to be respected or not.

B.S.  You're the one taking the word of the Agriculture Industry scientists and regarding them as honest at the same time as you're saying that the word of the scientists working for the fossil fuel companies in regards to global warming are well known lies.

You're the inconsistent one.

There is practically no independent research and absolutely no consensus in the academic scientific community that GMO foods are safe or unsafe.

[ag]

If a simpler solution is available, then choose that. The golden rice scenario is a good example: there is a problem (Vitamin A deficiency in the Thirld World) but it's worth investigating why that problem exists before throwing accusations back and forth to one another.

It is a simple and elegant solution. What is the problem?

The main question is, hy, given all the variety of breeding and selection methodes, is a small group chosen, based pretty much on no scientific criterion whatsoever, to be "scary and complicated", whereas many others - some of them equally easy to describe in apocalyptic mad scientist terms - are not?

In any case, I would really insist that none of these anti-GMO types in the future say a word about global warming or evolution (unless, of course, they are deniers). Scientific consensus is either to be respected or not.

B.S.  You're the one taking the word of the Agriculture Industry scientists and regarding them as honest at the same time as you're saying that the word of the scientists working for the fossil fuel companies in regards to global warming are well known lies.

You're the inconsistent one.

There is practically no independent research and absolutely no consensus in the academic scientific community that GMO foods are safe or unsafe.

1. I do not dispute global warming: I take scientific consensus for what it is. I am quite consistent there. I just do not want you to be talking about it. It is an opinion of you, not of the scientific evidence.

2. 110 Nobel prize winners, including 41 winner in Medicine and 35 winners in Chemistry have just signed this:

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html

Would they do it if there were no consensus?

The scientific consensus, as I understand it, is that the very question of safety/lack thereoff of "GMO" is meaningless. You can talk about particular products - exactly in the same way you can talk about particular products that are not classified as "GMO". If you want to argue that a particular cultivar of soy is somehow bad, be my guest. If you want to argue that Monsanto is doing something nasty - sure, present your arguments. But using "GMO" as a scare word is no different from any pseudo-scientific nonsense, like the Stalinist denunciation of genetics itself, or Creationist bullshoot about evolution.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

OK people are being stupid here. There is nothing inherently dangerous about modifying genes, but the one place dangers can come in is if genes coding for allergenic proteins are spliced into it. That's why the DoA (should) clamp down on any attempts to splice, I dunno, peanut genes into grapefruit. (the one time it has been released without proper clearance has been mentioned in this thread, the papaya that is grown in Hawaii, which was a special case, (and it is hard to deny the positive effect of that crop on Hawaii). Other modifications like silencing genes would have no effect at all, because you can't be allergic to the absence of a protein.

But on the other hand, we can be absurd:

Anything of nutritional, health, or biological interest.

About most things in the store you could, probably, produce a volume of 300 pages with information of greater nutritional, health, or biological interest than the "GMO" (which is of no nutritional or health interest at all, and is misleading biologically). Would you suggest that every apple should be accompanied by a history of its breeding/selection/hybridisation, etc.?

As I said above, anything that makes people realise that agriculture isn't some mysterious black box process would help.

So, which other things would you like lables to be put about? Hybridization? (Undirected) chemical/radiological mutations? Selection for harmful (from the standpoint of the plant or animal) mutations? Make you proposal!

Simple answer: what consumers demand. If there was a huge demand (drummed up scaremongering or otherwise) for knowing some obscure facts about how the product is produced, then I fail to see why business should conceal these facts. As I said, I would quite like most products to be more "connected" with actual agriculture rather than (I dunno) animated dancing cows or whatever.

Pschology is a tricky thing, but most people are not reassured by an unseen didactic appeal to clever people; but are reassured when they themselves choose to ingest it. By continuing to oppose these laws, the industry is shooting itself in the foot and causing biotechnology great pains.

If a simpler solution is available, then choose that. The golden rice scenario is a good example: there is a problem (Vitamin A deficiency in the Thirld World) but it's worth investigating why that problem exists before throwing accusations back and forth to one another.

It is a simple and elegant solution. What is the problem?

Well in golden rice's case (moving beyond the fact that rice in general is a terrible staple crop) people seem to be under this assumption of the evangelical that this project is the only way to boost Vitamin A efficiency. The crazy thing is that nonmilled rice has Vitamin A in the bran, but it is only milled for Western tastes and to keep the fats going rancid during export. One could easily think - why not just leave proportion of brown rice for locals to eat? But for some reason there is only one solution for people who have already decided there is one solution, and that solution is the solution that is no way near close for commercial release (and the delay is not because of hippies).

[136or142]

If a simpler solution is available, then choose that. The golden rice scenario is a good example: there is a problem (Vitamin A deficiency in the Thirld World) but it's worth investigating why that problem exists before throwing accusations back and forth to one another.

It is a simple and elegant solution. What is the problem?

The main question is, hy, given all the variety of breeding and selection methodes, is a small group chosen, based pretty much on no scientific criterion whatsoever, to be "scary and complicated", whereas many others - some of them equally easy to describe in apocalyptic mad scientist terms - are not?

In any case, I would really insist that none of these anti-GMO types in the future say a word about global warming or evolution (unless, of course, they are deniers). Scientific consensus is either to be respected or not.

B.S.  You're the one taking the word of the Agriculture Industry scientists and regarding them as honest at the same time as you're saying that the word of the scientists working for the fossil fuel companies in regards to global warming are well known lies.

You're the inconsistent one.

There is practically no independent research and absolutely no consensus in the academic scientific community that GMO foods are safe or unsafe.

1. I do not dispute global warming: I take scientific consensus for what it is. I am quite consistent there. I just do not want you to be talking about it. It is an opinion of you, not of the scientific evidence.

2. 110 Nobel prize winners, including 41 winner in Medicine and 35 winners in Chemistry have just signed this:

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html

Would they do it if there were no consensus?

The scientific consensus, as I understand it, is that the very question of safety/lack thereoff of "GMO" is meaningless. You can talk about particular products - exactly in the same way you can talk about particular products that are not classified as "GMO". If you want to argue that a particular cultivar of soy is somehow bad, be my guest. If you want to argue that Monsanto is doing something nasty - sure, present your arguments. But using "GMO" as a scare word is no different from any pseudo-scientific nonsense, like the Stalinist denunciation of genetics itself, or Creationist bullshoot about evolution.

I'm not trying to talk about GMOs as harmful or otherwise, I've already written that I didn't think there was much evidence to their alleged harm or to their alleged benefits, but:

1.GMO may be meant by some as a scare word, but it's also a short-hand in much the same way that 'carbon' is a short-hand for carbon-dioxide or even all GHGs.

2.I think you're the one playing games with the terms, as clearly those who oppose GMOs are referring to hybridization that does not occur naturally but that requires (artificially) taking a gene from one organism and placing it in other.  I don't know if there is anything wrong with this, but I think you need to move very carefully when doing genetic modification that doesn't occur naturally.  There certainly needs to be more oversight of this and it shouldn't be just left to the companies.

3.It especially shouldn't be left to these companies, when, like Monsanto, the largest company to engage in genetic modification of food, they've been shown to be dishonest, like using this 'golden rice' that has gone nowhere for over twenty years in order to to guilt-trip opponents of GMOs.  As is normal with any for-profit corporation, their first concern is not safe use of science, but making a profit.

4.There are how many thousands of scientists in medicine or chemistry?  Just because these scientists have Nobel Prizes I don't think proves there is a scientific consensus.

I've previously linked to a recent article from a European Journal showing there was no consensus in the academic scientific community, and here is a website:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

I don't know how credible it is, but they do list over 800 scientists opposed to GMOs, or some aspect of GMO research.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for? They haven't been modified for salt resistance, they haven't been modified for drought resistance. They have been modified for pesticide resistance. So by buying these GMO crops not only do you get greater amount of pesticides into the body, you also support the greater use of larger quantities pesticide which cause greater amounts end up in nature.

I thought GMO crops were modified to use LESS pesticides?

Yes, some are modified toward that end

Pesticides doesn't work that way, and even if it did, the basic economy behind GMO crops doesn't work that way either.

It doesn't have anything to do with how pesticides work.  It has to do with crops that are resistant to pests without the use of pesticides.  How would that not be economical?

The way a crop is resistant to pest is through making the plant harder to eat, do you see a problem with doing that to food crops. There's a few where it's possible mostly those where humans eat the roots or tubes. But the problem are that they're usual already toxic, as example the leaves of the potato plant are toxic.

Simply put it's much easier to make as plant resistant to a pesticide than to make them resistant to fungus as example (which is one of the few places, where GMO could potential work). In fact as the companies developing GMO also develop pesticide they also have a incentive to focus on pesticide resistant over more useful qualities like salt or drought resistance.

Bt crops work by introducing genes which are toxic to certain species of pests which target certain plants in certain geographic areas, but are safe for humans and most other species, even most other insects (unlike pesticide sprays).  This is already extremely common practice around the world and involving a majority of the corn grown in the US. 
Admittedly there are problems: like all other pesticides, the pest resistant GMO crops need to be used carefully using best agricultural practices to avoid the insects becoming resistant.   

[ingemann]

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for? They haven't been modified for salt resistance, they haven't been modified for drought resistance. They have been modified for pesticide resistance. So by buying these GMO crops not only do you get greater amount of pesticides into the body, you also support the greater use of larger quantities pesticide which cause greater amounts end up in nature.

I thought GMO crops were modified to use LESS pesticides?

Yes, some are modified toward that end

Pesticides doesn't work that way, and even if it did, the basic economy behind GMO crops doesn't work that way either.

It doesn't have anything to do with how pesticides work.  It has to do with crops that are resistant to pests without the use of pesticides.  How would that not be economical?

The way a crop is resistant to pest is through making the plant harder to eat, do you see a problem with doing that to food crops. There's a few where it's possible mostly those where humans eat the roots or tubes. But the problem are that they're usual already toxic, as example the leaves of the potato plant are toxic.

Simply put it's much easier to make as plant resistant to a pesticide than to make them resistant to fungus as example (which is one of the few places, where GMO could potential work). In fact as the companies developing GMO also develop pesticide they also have a incentive to focus on pesticide resistant over more useful qualities like salt or drought resistance.

Bt crops work by introducing genes which are toxic to certain species of pests which target certain plants in certain geographic areas, but are safe for humans and most other species, even most other insects (unlike pesticide sprays).  This is already extremely common practice around the world and involving a majority of the corn grown in the US. 

The problem is that we humans are omnivores, which mean that we are less well adapted to getting through plants defences than specialised herbivores, something which make it harder for insects to eat a plant also makes it harder for a human to eat. There's a reason why horse chestnut is delicatese for horses, cows and pigs (plus a whole lot of other herbivores) and inedible to humans.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for? They haven't been modified for salt resistance, they haven't been modified for drought resistance. They have been modified for pesticide resistance. So by buying these GMO crops not only do you get greater amount of pesticides into the body, you also support the greater use of larger quantities pesticide which cause greater amounts end up in nature.

I thought GMO crops were modified to use LESS pesticides?

Yes, some are modified toward that end

Pesticides doesn't work that way, and even if it did, the basic economy behind GMO crops doesn't work that way either.

It doesn't have anything to do with how pesticides work.  It has to do with crops that are resistant to pests without the use of pesticides.  How would that not be economical?

The way a crop is resistant to pest is through making the plant harder to eat, do you see a problem with doing that to food crops. There's a few where it's possible mostly those where humans eat the roots or tubes. But the problem are that they're usual already toxic, as example the leaves of the potato plant are toxic.

Simply put it's much easier to make as plant resistant to a pesticide than to make them resistant to fungus as example (which is one of the few places, where GMO could potential work). In fact as the companies developing GMO also develop pesticide they also have a incentive to focus on pesticide resistant over more useful qualities like salt or drought resistance.

Bt crops work by introducing genes which are toxic to certain species of pests which target certain plants in certain geographic areas, but are safe for humans and most other species, even most other insects (unlike pesticide sprays).  This is already extremely common practice around the world and involving a majority of the corn grown in the US. 

The problem is that we humans are omnivores, which mean that we are less well adapted to getting through plants defences than specialised herbivores, something which make it harder for insects to eat a plant also makes it harder for a human to eat. There's a reason why horse chestnut is delicatese for horses, cows and pigs (plus a whole lot of other herbivores) and inedible to humans.

Do you have a source for this claim?  It seems odd as there are insects that eat wood (most large herbivores don't even do that) and insects for whom common herbs and spices are toxic. I wouldn't think we can necessarily say if something is toxic for a particular species of insect it is toxic for humans as well.

horse chesnuts can be toxic to horses btw, it's a bit of a misnomer.

[ingemann]

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for? They haven't been modified for salt resistance, they haven't been modified for drought resistance. They have been modified for pesticide resistance. So by buying these GMO crops not only do you get greater amount of pesticides into the body, you also support the greater use of larger quantities pesticide which cause greater amounts end up in nature.

I thought GMO crops were modified to use LESS pesticides?

Yes, some are modified toward that end

Pesticides doesn't work that way, and even if it did, the basic economy behind GMO crops doesn't work that way either.

It doesn't have anything to do with how pesticides work.  It has to do with crops that are resistant to pests without the use of pesticides.  How would that not be economical?

The way a crop is resistant to pest is through making the plant harder to eat, do you see a problem with doing that to food crops. There's a few where it's possible mostly those where humans eat the roots or tubes. But the problem are that they're usual already toxic, as example the leaves of the potato plant are toxic.

Simply put it's much easier to make as plant resistant to a pesticide than to make them resistant to fungus as example (which is one of the few places, where GMO could potential work). In fact as the companies developing GMO also develop pesticide they also have a incentive to focus on pesticide resistant over more useful qualities like salt or drought resistance.

Bt crops work by introducing genes which are toxic to certain species of pests which target certain plants in certain geographic areas, but are safe for humans and most other species, even most other insects (unlike pesticide sprays).  This is already extremely common practice around the world and involving a majority of the corn grown in the US. 

The problem is that we humans are omnivores, which mean that we are less well adapted to getting through plants defences than specialised herbivores, something which make it harder for insects to eat a plant also makes it harder for a human to eat. There's a reason why horse chestnut is delicatese for horses, cows and pigs (plus a whole lot of other herbivores) and inedible to humans.

Do you have a source for this claim?  It seems odd as there are insects that eat wood (most large herbivores don't even do that) and insects for whom common herbs and spices are toxic. I wouldn't think we can necessarily say if something is toxic for a particular species of insect it is toxic for humans as well.

horse chesnuts can be toxic to horses btw, it's a bit of a misnomer.

That would surprise my father, who used to feed the draft horses with it as child and teen (it was before they was butchered in the 50ties). Horse chestnut is not really toxic, but like many (semi) inedible nuts they have tannin in them. Specialised herbivores can usual break down tannin, but we really never evolve that ability to such a degree that we can consume these nut directly (you can make a horrible replacement coffee out these nut, or soak them to get the tannin out).

As for insects which can't eat some herbs, it's usual a question about quantities. As example nicotine serve as a insect repellant and humans can consume it. But it's not a good idea for a human to consume it in large quantities. But our size enable us to survive mildly toxic herbs, which insects with their much smaller size can't survive. But it's not a good idea to fill our crops up with those compounds.

[KingSweden]

yet we don't mandate pesticide disclosure on the label.

Well you should.

My point is that VT won't pass that as it's well-established practice. Even though the science says that there's little threat from the vast majority of GMOs, they'd rather go after the new technology, than the known concern from the older tech.

"We don't do this good thing, therefore we shouldn't do that other good thing either."

Great rationale.

Catering to anti-science paranoids is not a good thing.

Bingo. GMOs sound scary and this is nothing but pointing justifiable anger at Monsanto (a legitimately sketchy company) I'm the direction of its product rather than its business practices.

[136or142]

yet we don't mandate pesticide disclosure on the label.

Well you should.

My point is that VT won't pass that as it's well-established practice. Even though the science says that there's little threat from the vast majority of GMOs, they'd rather go after the new technology, than the known concern from the older tech.

"We don't do this good thing, therefore we shouldn't do that other good thing either."

Great rationale.

Catering to anti-science paranoids is not a good thing.

Bingo. GMOs sound scary and this is nothing but pointing justifiable anger at Monsanto (a legitimately sketchy company) I'm the direction of its product rather than its business practices.

I think this is a distinction without a difference.  Its sketchy business practices are in support of its products.  I don't quite know how you can argue if you don't trust Monsanto how you can believe that GMOs are safe when the research backing that largely comes from Monsanto scientists.

I'm also not specifically anti-GMO. I've written several times here that I think the evidence of both the alleged harm and the alleged benefits or GMOs are pretty thin.  

This just strikes me, when it comes to GMO use in food, as a lot of money spent to produce very little of benefit to consumers or to society.  

I think it's pretty clear the real reason Monsanto and other large agricultural companies like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) are pursuing GMOs is, what the conspiracy theorists say it is: that they want to patent seeds so as to turn them into an ever increasing profit center and to have as few farmers as possible use saved seeds.  These agriculture companies have the farmers they sell to sign contracts that stipulate that the farmers won't use any saved seeds but will buy new seeds every year.

Monsanto and maybe other large agricultural companies have done research into developing GMO 'terminator' seeds that don't reproduce. Monsanto denies they've ever sold terminator seeds commercially, but they don't deny doing research into them, and this is obviously a legitimate concern to those who are anti-GMO: what would happen if terminator seeds got into the wild and 'mixed' with natural seeds?.  Given this obvious potential risk and that they deny they have any interest in commercializing these seeds, why did they do research into them in the first place?

Given all this, I don't know how anybody can be legitimately suspicious of big-business and still claim that anybody who is anti-GMO must also be anti-science.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As for insects which can't eat some herbs, it's usual a question about quantities. As example nicotine serve as a insect repellant and humans can consume it. But it's not a good idea for a human to consume it in large quantities. But our size enable us to survive mildly toxic herbs, which insects with their much smaller size can't survive. But it's not a good idea to fill our crops up with those compounds.

Why specifically is not a good idea?    Since different insects respond differently to various plants and compounds, this is not just a matter of size.  There are some things which have some toxicity for pretty much all species.  But there are other things which are toxic for some species and perfectly safe for others.

[KingSweden]

yet we don't mandate pesticide disclosure on the label.

Well you should.

My point is that VT won't pass that as it's well-established practice. Even though the science says that there's little threat from the vast majority of GMOs, they'd rather go after the new technology, than the known concern from the older tech.

"We don't do this good thing, therefore we shouldn't do that other good thing either."

Great rationale.

Catering to anti-science paranoids is not a good thing.

Bingo. GMOs sound scary and this is nothing but pointing justifiable anger at Monsanto (a legitimately sketchy company) I'm the direction of its product rather than its business practices.

I think this is a distinction without a difference.  Its sketchy business practices are in support of its products.  I don't quite know how you can argue if you don't trust Monsanto how you can believe that GMOs are safe when the research backing that largely comes from Monsanto scientists.

I'm also not specifically anti-GMO. I've written several times here that I think the evidence of both the alleged harm and the alleged benefits or GMOs are pretty thin.  

This just strikes me, when it comes to GMO use in food, as a lot of money spent to produce very little of benefit to consumers or to society.  

I think it's pretty clear the real reason Monsanto and other large agricultural companies like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) are pursuing GMOs is, what the conspiracy theorists say it is: that they want to patent seeds so as to turn them into an ever increasing profit center and to have as few farmers as possible use saved seeds.  These agriculture companies have the farmers they sell to sign contracts that stipulate that the farmers won't use any saved seeds but will buy new seeds every year.

Monsanto and maybe other large agricultural companies have done research into developing GMO 'terminator' seeds that don't reproduce. Monsanto denies they've ever sold terminator seeds commercially, but they don't deny doing research into them, and this is obviously a legitimate concern to those who are anti-GMO: what would happen if terminator seeds got into the wild and 'mixed' with natural seeds?.  Given this obvious potential risk and that they deny they have any interest in commercializing these seeds, why did they do research into them in the first place?

Given all this, I don't know how anybody can be legitimately suspicious of big-business and still claim that anybody who is anti-GMO must also be anti-science.

Fair points, and I certainly don't trust Monsanto - I just think conclusions on this field are being reached too early. I'm just worried an interesting and revolutionary field got get choked off before greater benefits/risks are uncovered. The whole anti-GMO reaction seems more "It's bad because I think it's bad!" rather than anything more concrete. It seems awfully Luddite to me.

The other thing that grates at me is that the anti-GMO crusade is being waged in wealthy, well-fed Western nations from a position of privilege (it hurts me writing that haha). Poorer countries that may benefit from sturdier crops resistant to diseases and pests that, thankfully, we don't have in the West could help alleviate hunger and famines. I'm not saying they WILL, but I don't think it's right that we contribute to stigmatizing GMOs permanently until we give them a chance.

[ingemann]

As for insects which can't eat some herbs, it's usual a question about quantities. As example nicotine serve as a insect repellant and humans can consume it. But it's not a good idea for a human to consume it in large quantities. But our size enable us to survive mildly toxic herbs, which insects with their much smaller size can't survive. But it's not a good idea to fill our crops up with those compounds.

Why specifically is not a good idea?    Since different insects respond differently to various plants and compounds, this is not just a matter of size.  There are some things which have some toxicity for pretty much all species.  But there are other things which are toxic for some species and perfectly safe for others.

You can in theory maybe find such compounds, the problem again is that pesticide resistance is easier, cheaper and less time consuming to produce and it have the extra bonus that you also make more money, because you can bill people both for the crop and the pesticide.

So do you really think that large corporation will waste their time on something which will make them less money than something which is easier to make?

If not, how relevant do you think the theorectical use of GMO is compared to the way GMOs are used in the real world, our world, reality etc. and not some theorectical "what if" world that could be.

[ingemann]

yet we don't mandate pesticide disclosure on the label.

Well you should.

My point is that VT won't pass that as it's well-established practice. Even though the science says that there's little threat from the vast majority of GMOs, they'd rather go after the new technology, than the known concern from the older tech.

"We don't do this good thing, therefore we shouldn't do that other good thing either."

Great rationale.

Catering to anti-science paranoids is not a good thing.

Bingo. GMOs sound scary and this is nothing but pointing justifiable anger at Monsanto (a legitimately sketchy company) I'm the direction of its product rather than its business practices.

I think this is a distinction without a difference.  Its sketchy business practices are in support of its products.  I don't quite know how you can argue if you don't trust Monsanto how you can believe that GMOs are safe when the research backing that largely comes from Monsanto scientists.

I'm also not specifically anti-GMO. I've written several times here that I think the evidence of both the alleged harm and the alleged benefits or GMOs are pretty thin.  

This just strikes me, when it comes to GMO use in food, as a lot of money spent to produce very little of benefit to consumers or to society.  

I think it's pretty clear the real reason Monsanto and other large agricultural companies like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) are pursuing GMOs is, what the conspiracy theorists say it is: that they want to patent seeds so as to turn them into an ever increasing profit center and to have as few farmers as possible use saved seeds.  These agriculture companies have the farmers they sell to sign contracts that stipulate that the farmers won't use any saved seeds but will buy new seeds every year.

Monsanto and maybe other large agricultural companies have done research into developing GMO 'terminator' seeds that don't reproduce. Monsanto denies they've ever sold terminator seeds commercially, but they don't deny doing research into them, and this is obviously a legitimate concern to those who are anti-GMO: what would happen if terminator seeds got into the wild and 'mixed' with natural seeds?.  Given this obvious potential risk and that they deny they have any interest in commercializing these seeds, why did they do research into them in the first place?

Given all this, I don't know how anybody can be legitimately suspicious of big-business and still claim that anybody who is anti-GMO must also be anti-science.

Fair points, and I certainly don't trust Monsanto - I just think conclusions on this field are being reached too early. I'm just worried an interesting and revolutionary field got get choked off before greater benefits/risks are uncovered. The whole anti-GMO reaction seems more "It's bad because I think it's bad!" rather than anything more concrete. It seems awfully Luddite to me.

The other thing that grates at me is that the anti-GMO crusade is being waged in wealthy, well-fed Western nations from a position of privilege (it hurts me writing that haha). Poorer countries that may benefit from sturdier crops resistant to diseases and pests that, thankfully, we don't have in the West could help alleviate hunger and famines. I'm not saying they WILL, but I don't think it's right that we contribute to stigmatizing GMOs permanently until we give them a chance.

And you don't think that poison the soil and ground water won't stigmatise GMOs?

I agree that many outspoken anti-GMOs are idiots. But I think they're less dangerous than naive techno-utopians, who ignore how GMO crops are used and instead just believe whatever they're told by corporations, who stand to make money from the increased use of GMOs. This is the Dust Bowl of the information age, we have seen the consequences of unsustainable agriculture in the past and people who warn about are always called Luddites.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As for insects which can't eat some herbs, it's usual a question about quantities. As example nicotine serve as a insect repellant and humans can consume it. But it's not a good idea for a human to consume it in large quantities. But our size enable us to survive mildly toxic herbs, which insects with their much smaller size can't survive. But it's not a good idea to fill our crops up with those compounds.

Why specifically is not a good idea?    Since different insects respond differently to various plants and compounds, this is not just a matter of size.  There are some things which have some toxicity for pretty much all species.  But there are other things which are toxic for some species and perfectly safe for others.

You can in theory maybe find such compounds, the problem again is that pesticide resistance is easier, cheaper and less time consuming to produce and it have the extra bonus that you also make more money, because you can bill people both for the crop and the pesticide.

So do you really think that large corporation will waste their time on something which will make them less money than something which is easier to make?

If not, how relevant do you think the theorectical use of GMO is compared to the way GMOs are used in the real world, our world, reality etc. and not some theorectical "what if" world that could be.

I am not talking about theory, I am talking about something that has been in widespread use for years - genetic proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This is similar to the scare over irradiated meat. Scientists since the 1960's have agreed that it is safe to use low-level radiation to kill all the microbes in food to increase the shelf life. The food doesn't retain any radioactivity; it's not different than food preserved in other ways. But when you are required to sell your normal hamburger as "irradiated hamburger", no one is going to buy it. The public sees a word similar to radiation and they are going to think that the meat contains radiation, even though it doesn't.

Specifically gamma rays. Gamma rays don't remain in the food after you fire them, so you can fire as many as you want at meat and it would never turn toxic.

[Alcon]

4.There are how many thousands of scientists in medicine or chemistry?  Just because these scientists have Nobel Prizes I don't think proves there is a scientific consensus.

I've previously linked to a recent article from a European Journal showing there was no consensus in the academic scientific community, and here is a website:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

I don't know how credible it is, but they do list over 800 scientists opposed to GMOs, or some aspect of GMO research.

Please don't give crap like this the time of day.  This is one of those marginal science-truther groups that exist around climate change and a myriad of other issues.  Some of these people have scientific accreditation (as do some climate change denialists), but others are crazies, sociologists, and a few don't appear to be scientists at all.  One appears to be a political consultant in Nevada.

There is plenty of independent, government-funded research into the safety of GMOs.  The European Union, for instance, has funded a ton of research.  The findings for the independently-funded research are effectively identical to those funded with industry money.   I don't know how you reached this conclusion, unless you read it somewhere and didn't even bother to Google it to verify.

A lot is industry-funded, but that's because a lot of university research has industry funding, not because of some vast conspiracy.  The proportion of scientists who believe GMOs are safe to eat is the same as the proportion who believe in climate change.

It's really painful to watch some on the left with this issue.  And it's so often the same people who claim they're totally baffled by how right-wingers can fail to understand the basics of climate change science, and refuse to defer to scientific consensus.  This is how.  Just replace "greedy, dishonest academics" with "greedy, dishonest corporations" and you're set.  And if you wonder how those on the right can conflate weather with climate...well, how often do you see people on the left presume "contains GMO" tells us something useful about "what's in our food," as if genetic engineering were an ingredient or specific enough to be actionable?  That belies a basic misunderstanding of concepts, too.

[ingemann]

As for insects which can't eat some herbs, it's usual a question about quantities. As example nicotine serve as a insect repellant and humans can consume it. But it's not a good idea for a human to consume it in large quantities. But our size enable us to survive mildly toxic herbs, which insects with their much smaller size can't survive. But it's not a good idea to fill our crops up with those compounds.

Why specifically is not a good idea?    Since different insects respond differently to various plants and compounds, this is not just a matter of size.  There are some things which have some toxicity for pretty much all species.  But there are other things which are toxic for some species and perfectly safe for others.

You can in theory maybe find such compounds, the problem again is that pesticide resistance is easier, cheaper and less time consuming to produce and it have the extra bonus that you also make more money, because you can bill people both for the crop and the pesticide.

So do you really think that large corporation will waste their time on something which will make them less money than something which is easier to make?

If not, how relevant do you think the theorectical use of GMO is compared to the way GMOs are used in the real world, our world, reality etc. and not some theorectical "what if" world that could be.

I am not talking about theory, I am talking about something that has been in widespread use for years - genetic proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx

Interesting stats, you do seem to be correct, even if 90% of corn and cotton in USA seem to have been engined for pesticide resistance. Which is a stat I will love to use next time this discussion is brought up .

[Alcon]

Ingemann, what do you make of the independent findings (I believe the few studies in question were independent) that some GMO technologies allow for the use of less harsh pesticides?  And what specific concerns do you have about GMOs and biodiversity that don't apply to conventional technologies?  Your response that "pesticides don't work that way" earlier kind of confuses me.  A lot of your criticisms don't seem particularly unique to GMOs.