Vermont gmo label law starts today

[ingemann]

Yes here the techno-utopians go again, drinking the corporate propaganda. Yes many GMO opponent object to GMO because a individual dangers directly caused by the GMO, and on that these scientist are correct, if a GMO crop have been tested the individual danger will be non-existing.

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.

Another aspect is also that GMO in the corporate manners we them used, also have a negative effect on the biodiversity among crops. "Who cares about bio diversity in potatoes" says the techno-utopists, well historical the potato famine happened, because a high yield potato out competed the more diverse potato crops which dominated before, the result was that Europe in general and Ireland specific in the 1840s was dominated by single potato crop with little genetic diversity. We have seen the same with bananas, where we have seen a dominating banana crop collapse. If we see the same in with rice in 20 years, we will likely see the biggest famine in world history, and then you people are welcome with coming with your "... but but dihydrogen monoxide".

[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?

No the point about pesticides is to kill weeds, pests, fungus without killing the crop, this set up a limit for much you can use. The use of pesticides have resulted in those pest, weed and fungus becoming more resistant, which mean you need to use more. But that risk killing the crop. So what you do is increase the crops resistance to pesticides allowing you to use more.

Of course GMO in animals usual have the purpose to increase the size of the animal, not increasing their resistance to anything, which is why I don't really object to that much. Of course it also have some negative effect on the environment (if as example GMO are released into nature by accident), but these are minor compared to the effect of increased use of pesticides.

[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.

[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.

[ingemann]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[ingemann]

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.

You're fully correct that the criticism aren't unique to GMO, it's a general problem we see with modern agriculture. But GMO makes the problems I mention worse. While most western farmers buy seeds, they have a broad choice of seed companies, which means that there are more genetic diversity in the the crop between farm to farm, limiting the risk of an epidemic hitting the crop. GMO crops are geared toward specific pesticides, which mean the crop are owned by a single company and have even less genetic diversity than standard crop.

But when I mentioned western farmers, it also show one of the problems with bringing GMO to the undeveloped world, their farmers usual don't buy the seeds, but keep some from last year's harvest. This mean that their crop are more diverse and more robust against epidemics. But they are often sold GMO as some kind of miracle crop, and they usual lack the equitment and money, which western farmers have, which enable them to deal with monoculture crops.

Do I think that we could introduce beneficial GMOs; yes I do, but I don't believe that will happen unless states or NGO develop them instead of large agrocorps.

It's one of my point pesticide resistance makes the most sense from a economic POV (from corporation). Farmers with good soil are richer and can pay more, they can afford pesticides and pay for expensive GMO crop. Farmers whose soil often suffer from drought and salination on the other hand can't afford expensive GMO crop. Which is why pesticide resistance is the main choice for modification of the crops.