Why GM foods are bad...

[Raven]

The obvious problem with GM foods is that evolution has been playing this game for 3 billion years and we seem to think we can cheat the system by making rather obvious and simplistic adjustments to the playing field..resistance to this and that lasts one generation and a bug generation is a matter of weeks...as soon as the new supet crop is released evolution will begin its unstoppable destruction of it.

Wrong. Humans have been fiddling with evolution since we stopped aimlessly wandering about. Pretty much every plant, tree and animal has in one way or another been changed by man rather than nature. Probably with the exception of the rain forests but even they are being changed.

The flip side is we will end up lacking diversity meaning if something nasty does come up and kill a crop we may not have an alternative.

 

[rynnor]

Monsanto is evil says the collective wisdom of Facebook. Ever looked beyond Facebook links?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...mate-corporation-sold-itself-to-monsanto.html

I have never used Facebook - I'm not some kind of bleeding heart vegetarian but I am quite disturbed about the way the Pusztai affair was handled and it's implications for GM whistle blowers - i.e. you'll never work again.

Does that really not fill you with a little trepidation? To hear the Editor of the Lancet was threatened after deciding to publish an article that had passed a rigorous peer review?

It stinks tbh.

 

[rynnor]

Wrong. Humans have been fiddling with evolution since we stopped aimlessly wandering about. Pretty much every plant, tree and animal has in one way or another been changed by man rather than nature. Probably with the exception of the rain forests but even they are being changed.

This is a straw man argument that has been put forward by the GM lobby - GM is a step change away from how mankind has previously bred plants - it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise and is pure disinformation for the uneducated masses.

 

[Raven]

I see we are in full patronising, pompous, prick mode tonight so I will leave you to it.

 

[Wij]

In 1999 when that one I referred to was posted it was apparently the first study of the effects of a gm crop on health of its consumer even in animals.

Also no subsequent criticism has actually denied the facts of what was found and confirmed in followup experiments (they had to follow up because the company involved seized all the data and legally blocked them from referring to the initial experiments).

So? You have one study on one case, not GM as a technology. No one ever claimed every crop produced by GM will be safe, just as there are a great many natural plants that are utterly toxic.

To borrow from Climate Change language the consensus is in. GM, as a technology, us safe.

 

[Wij]

So what exactly? Are you saying a dodgy human being completely nullifies any associated causes otherwise how is this relevant to the debate rather than just some reactionary mudslinging?

What more did you offer than mudslinging? Where's your proof that GM is an unsafe technology?

 

[rynnor]

I see we are in full patronising, pompous, prick mode tonight so I will leave you to it.

Nothing personal but I have just heard that nonsense fallacy so many times it irritates my common sense. It really is designed to get people to think of GM as just a natural incremental change rather than the revolution (with potential for both good and bad) that it really is.

I'm not completely anti them but I feel they are currently poorly regulated and there needs to be proper protection for whistle blowers if this is going to advance safely.

 

[Wij]

Again - interesting but the GN protein case shows a real danger of public interest and shows exactly what lengths the GM producers were willing to go to, to crush any dissent from the party line that all GM is perfectly safe - do you really think there is no possible case where GM crops could harm anyone even after evidence to the contrary?

What the fuck? Did you even read the article?

The party line? You're making shit up? Even leading proponents of GM accept that new crops should be tested for toxicity. No one is saying that every line they produce must necessarily be safe.

Seriously, what the fuck. Are you on drugs?

 

[Wij]

This is pure and simple a loss leader to get their foot in the door and counter the anti GM lobby - its certainly not charity - its a PR campaign.

I imagine they will test this one rigorously because it will be under the spotlight but it should not blind people to the many problems both economic and health related of GM crops.

There's also a big discussion of exactly how much vitamin A will remain after cooking and suggestions that simple supplementation may well be cheaper and more effective.

Good thing must be banned because of conspiracy theory. Nice.

 

[rynnor]

What more did you offer than mudslinging? Where's your proof that GM is an unsafe technology?

The technology like all advances is in itself neither good or bad but it has the potential for both - I think it's too early for idiots like the environment minister to start saying GM foods are safer than normal ones (which he actually did remarkably).

On the precautionary principle that you AGW believers so love we should surely not introduce GM into our food chain beyond animal feed

 

[Wij]

I'm not completely anti them but I feel they are currently poorly regulated and there needs to be proper protection for whistle blowers if this is going to advance safely.

Wrong. Regulation in the EU gets stronger every year to bend to public pressure and not allow products to be approved. Need a link for that? I had one but got bored of pasting them tbh.

 

[rynnor]

No one ever claimed every crop produced by GM will be safe,

Other than our environment minister you mean?

 

[Wij]

like the environment minister to start saying GM foods are safer than normal ones (which he actually did remarkably).

Because there have been studies which suggested in some cases they are. Some pests leave carcinogenic dung and excretions which they can't do on some GM crops. Need a link?

 

[Wij]

Other than our environment minister you mean?

EVERY one? Source?

 

[rynnor]

What the fuck? Did you even read the article?

The party line? You're making shit up? Even leading proponents of GM accept that new crops should be tested for toxicity. No one is saying that every line they produce must necessarily be safe.

Seriously, what the fuck. Are you on drugs?

Read the wiki entry at the top - you seem ill informed and ranting.

 

[rynnor]

EVERY one? Source?

He didn't just say safe - he said safer than conventional crops - very funny

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22967571

 

[rynnor]

Because there have been studies which suggested in some cases they are. Some pests leave carcinogenic dung and excretions which they can't do on some GM crops. Need a link?

You mean GM means we no longer need to wash food - amazing

 

[Wij]

Read the wiki entry at the top - you seem ill informed and ranting.

You were commenting on my link from Forbes and missed what it was about.


As a side point, are you seriously basing your point on a Wikipedia entry?

 

[rynnor]

Wrong. Regulation in the EU gets stronger every year to bend to public pressure and not allow products to be approved. Need a link for that? I had one but got bored of pasting them tbh.

Dodging the bit about whistle blowers I see. People are rightly concerned about the impact on our food chain as they should be.

How long did it take for smoking to be identified as a health risk from first use eh?

 

[Wij]

He didn't just say safe - he said safer than conventional crops - very funny

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22967571

As I've said, they can be.

 

[Wij]

You mean GM means we no longer need to wash food - amazing

Nope. I plainly didn't.

 

[Wij]

Dodging the bit about whistle blowers I see. People are rightly concerned about the impact on our food chain as they should be.

How long did it take for smoking to be identified as a health risk from first use eh?

Raising smoking in discussions about GM is the equivalent of Godwins Law tbh.

 

[rynnor]

You were commenting on my link from Forbes and missed what it was about.


As a side point, are you seriously basing your point on a Wikipedia entry?

No - it was an interesting starting point though and also of interest was the version history. Its a shame that many scientists dismissed the case due to the initial erroneous public release that linked the study to a separate GM experiment that was going on at the same lab where they were purposefully adding a gene for toxicity in another plant.

 

[rynnor]

Raising smoking in discussions about GM is the equivalent of Godwins Law tbh.

Why - because its uncomfortable and you don't want to discuss it? It seems a reasonable paralell to me - it even had the tobacco companies suppressing studies that showed a health risk.

 

[rynnor]

You were commenting on my link from Forbes and missed what it was about.

The long rambling letter about how Monsanto was good from a man who had just sold his company to them and wanted to re-assure his staff?

He's welcome to his opinion the same as I am.

 

[Wij]

The long rambling letter about how Monsanto was good from a man who had just sold his company to them and wanted to re-assure his staff?

He's welcome to his opinion the same as I am.

No. The one about microRNA.

 

[Wij]

Why - because its uncomfortable and you don't want to discuss it? It seems a reasonable paralell to me - it even had the tobacco companies suppressing studies that showed a health risk.

Unlike then though, GM products are subjected to controlled trials all the time in the full gaze of public scrutiny and consistently come out as safe. Not even remotely similar.

 

[Wij]

No - it was an interesting starting point though and also of interest was the version history. Its a shame that many scientists dismissed the case due to the initial erroneous public release that linked the study to a separate GM experiment that was going on at the same lab where they were purposefully adding a gene for toxicity in another plant.

I fail to see how that relates to my link and your link was to a trial whose methodology has been widely questioned.

 

[Wij]

Here you go. From near the actual time:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/science-pusztai-the-verdict-1071729.html

 

[rynnor]

No. The one about microRNA.

Oh the one where people grabbed at straws to attack GM? Pretty foolish they look now - I am aware that people make a living attacking this stuff - I am trying to steer a path between both camps to try and see for myself - it's pretty damned polarised though which is sad.