Why GM foods are bad...

[Wij]

And yes, even in science, when someone is obviously trying to push to the answer they want regardless of the evidence, they can be censured. Remember that terrible cunt Andrew Wakefield?

 

[Wij]

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

Remember that more than anything when reading sites that quote Pusztai endlessly.

 

[rynnor]

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.

I was more concerned with how long a potential malign effect could take to materialise - if its 30 years or more and only manifests in humans the trials would not protect us.

 

[rynnor]

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

The wiki and other articles I read questioned that questioning. I had a look myself and these are my thoughts.

1 - the methodology - the research was a tender for job that they won on the basis that their proposal was the best method so it seems odd to later try to make it out as flawed?

2. It did pass peer review - tbh I think his only real mistake was going a bit too far on the speculation of its impact of the health of the animal (specifically the immune system) - some of it he couldn't really substantiate and that weakened the whole paper. It does not change what he saw though and that was later repeated.

3. The potato protein criticism stuff is a load of crap - it would have been exactly the same for the control group and the ones where the feed was laced with the protein.

 

[rynnor]

And yes, even in science, when someone is obviously trying to push to the answer they want regardless of the evidence, they can be censured. Remember that terrible cunt Andrew Wakefield?

Of course but remember that (Edit - in Pusztai's case) he wasn't setting out to change the world when he did these experiments - he was being paid to do a (what he had thought) routine safety check on a protein that was basically safe. He found an unexpected result and went public fearing for public health - he must have known that such actions would get him in shit but he did them anyway.

 

[rynnor]

Remember that more than anything when reading sites that quote Pusztai endlessly.

Of course but the pro GM lobbyists are also pushing a line - the truth lies somewhere between them both.

 

[Job]

The advantages of lab modified crops are claims that we wont need as much pesticide and that natural defences will be engineered into plants...but of course its bolaks..natural defences are an ever changing front between predator and prey..you can give one side an artificial advantage and everythings great for a little bit and then the other side mutates.
Now ghis is common knowledge and you would presume that everyone involved would have the comon sense to make people aware of that..but when you look at the idiocy of antibiotics you realise that man will stick his fingers in his ears for short term gain...the GM industry just hopes it can keep ahead of the game...and keep itself in stupid profits..I havent seen any evidence of a technology that can work past a few years.

 

[rynnor]

The advantages of lab modified crops are claims that we wont need as much pesticide and that natural defences will be engineered into plants.

I think the bigger problem so far has been herbicides - plants have been modified to be immune to certain herbicides which have then been used where these crops are grown. This has created two problems - A - greater use of chemical herbicides and B - the theoretical risk that this herbicide resistance gene gets into the weeds and the herbicides become ineffective.

You are also correct about the insect arms race - anything we do is just a temporary gain before the insects become immune. Whenever man has fought these kinds of battles like with rat poison or myxomatosis we basically selected for resistance/immunity - it had a short term effect but we still have plenty of rabbits.

 

[Wij]

The advantages of lab modified crops are claims that we wont need as much pesticide and that natural defences will be engineered into plants...but of course its bolaks..natural defences are an ever changing front between predator and prey..you can give one side an artificial advantage and everythings great for a little bit and then the other side mutates.
Now ghis is common knowledge and you would presume that everyone involved would have the comon sense to make people aware of that..but when you look at the idiocy of antibiotics you realise that man will stick his fingers in his ears for short term gain...the GM industry just hopes it can keep ahead of the game...and keep itself in stupid profits..I havent seen any evidence of a technology that can work past a few years.

That's just a sweeping generalisation. Not all modifications are aimed at reducing predation. Take the already mentioned example of Golden Rice and explain how nature will stop that working.

By your reasoning all attempts to increase food supply are doomed to regress back to the mean and therefore the green revolution couldn't have worked and everyone is now starving. Oh wait, they aren't.

 

[Wij]

I think the bigger problem so far has been herbicides - plants have been modified to be immune to certain herbicides which have then been used where these crops are grown. This has created two problems - A - greater use of chemical herbicides and B - the theoretical risk that this herbicide resistance gene gets into the weeds and the herbicides become ineffective.

Again, that's only one way that GM could work. There are many other ways it could be used. Even if we granted it was true, which it probably isn't in most cases but what the hey, it wouldn't invalidate GM as a technology and says nothing about the safety and efficacy of GM per se.

 

[Wij]

Of course but the pro GM lobbyists are also pushing a line - the truth lies somewhere between them both.

Ah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

 

[Wij]

Of course but remember that (Edit - in Pusztai's case) he wasn't setting out to change the world when he did these experiments - he was being paid to do a (what he had thought) routine safety check on a protein that was basically safe. He found an unexpected result and went public fearing for public health - he must have known that such actions would get him in shit but he did them anyway.

Nevertheless, his methodology has been widely trashed.

 

[rynnor]

Again, that's only one way that GM could work. There are many other ways it could be used. Even if we granted it was true, which it probably isn't in most cases but what the hey, it wouldn't invalidate GM as a technology and says nothing about the safety and efficacy of GM per se.

It would just be nice to have an honest debate rather than one side saying GM will be the second coming and the other that its the spawn of Satan.

The benefits of GM are currently being overstated in a campaign for hearts and minds the same as for most new products but like in the climate debate the supporters of GM are trying to paint anyone who questions it as 'wicked' (environment minister again - what a tool).

Reducing use of pesticides is touted as one of the big reasons to promote GM currently but there's no mention that such effects are only temporary - its exactly the same as producing a new insecticide except its harder to remove from the product.

 

[rynnor]

Ah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

In a polarised debate the truth is never at either pole.

Edit - unless you believe either A: GM is always perfect and no threat. or B: GM is pure evil.

Sensible opinion lies somewhere between the two or do you disagree?

 

[rynnor]

Nevertheless, his methodology has been widely trashed.

Certainly there has been an unusual amount of effort to trash it on the basis of 'throw enough mud and some will stick' - there's a lot of money at stake for anything that threatens GM.

 

[rynnor]

I still see nothing that GM gives us that overrides the precautionary principle when we consider something so fundamental to our existence as the food chain.

If we really did have a real shortage of food maybe but there are plenty of non-GM ways of tackling that as we have successfully for thousands of years.

After all the shocks in the food supply in recent memory - listeria, CJD, horsemeat etc. consumers are not going to accept GM.

 

[Wij]

I still see nothing that GM gives us that overrides the precautionary principle

Except mountains of evidence?

 

[Wij]

In a polarised debate the truth is never at either pole.

Edit - unless you believe either A: GM is always perfect and no threat. or B: GM is pure evil.

Sensible opinion lies somewhere between the two or do you disagree?

False dichotomy. The position could be that GM as a technology is safe, but individual GM products may or may not be (and that's why they get tested same as any new crop.)

 

[rynnor]

False dichotomy. The position could be that GM as a technology is safe, but individual GM products may or may not be (and that's why they get tested same as any new crop.)

The technology is as safe as nuclear theory - its always going to be down to how these things are implemented. The testing regime is a compromise - it cannot guarantee to pick up all effects especially long term ones so why take the risk?

Exactly what are we getting from GM that we cannot get using other methods that is worth overriding the precautionary principle - that's the real crux of it.

 

[rynnor]

Except mountains of evidence?

It gives us mountains of evidence - I think you are intentionally mis-understanding my question - what does GM actually give us that is worth all the novel risks?

 

[Wij]

The technology is as safe as nuclear theory - its always going to be down to how these things are implemented. The testing regime is a compromise - it cannot guarantee to pick up all effects especially long term ones so why take the risk?

Exactly what are we getting from GM that we cannot get using other methods that is worth overriding the precautionary principle - that's the real crux of it.

If the technology itself is safe, and there's no credible evidence otherwise, then all you are left with is individual new products which may or may not be safe. This is no different to any previous techniques.

No testing of anything can be guaranteed 100% safe forever more. If you wanted to know that before allowing anything then you'd be banning everything.

Why take the risk? Because it allows us to come up with crops with properties that either couldn't be achieved in other ways or can be achieved much quicker. Why would you want to limit us to not having these possibilities. Again, take the example of Golden Rice, why would you NOT want it if testing has shown it to be as safe as anything else we know about? Seems pretty perverse to me.

But back to why take the risk... What risk are we talking about in particular? The risk of the technique or the risk of individual lines? You're obfuscating between them at will.

 

[rynnor]

If the technology itself is safe, and there's no credible evidence otherwise, then all you are left with is individual new products which may or may not be safe. This is no different to any previous techniques.

No testing of anything can be guaranteed 100% safe forever more. If you wanted to know that before allowing anything then you'd be banning everything.

Why take the risk? Because it allows us to come up with crops with properties that either couldn't be achieved in other ways or can be achieved much quicker. Why would you want to limit us to not having these possibilities. Again, take the example of Golden Rice, why would you NOT want it if testing has shown it to be as safe as anything else we know about? Seems pretty perverse to me.

But back to why take the risk... What risk are we talking about in particular? The risk of the technique or the risk of individual lines? You're obfuscating between them at will.

I am only talking about the UK - this stuff is going on elsewhere - why rush to join the party when we have no real need for GM and we can use the time to see if there are any long term effects on those who consume it?

People elsewhere can make their own decisions - if you were in a crisis you would no doubt take a GM fix without worrying too much about the longer term.

We are not in a crisis and can afford to sit back and wait a few more decades - why would you sensibly do otherwise? GM crops are generally solutions to problems we don't have.

 

[old.Tohtori]

GM crops are generally solutions to problems we don't have.

Could export to places that have those problems.

 

[rynnor]

Could export to places that have those problems.

We can still do that just don't eat it here. There's a big problem over consumer choice, food labelling and the practicalities of whether GM foodstuffs can really be isolated from non-GM in the supply chain. As it is GM soya is being eaten throughout Europe without labelling.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Fair enough, needs to be a choice for the consumer, yet can produce and export.

Follow-up thingy; if we're eating GM stuff without knowing it, how do we know that we wouldn't have a problem without part of our food being GM? If you know what i mean.

 

[rynnor]

Fair enough, needs to be a choice for the consumer, yet can produce and export.

Follow-up thingy; if we're eating GM stuff without knowing it, how do we know that we wouldn't have a problem without part of our food being GM? If you know what i mean.

Its more a commodities and traceability issue as I understand it. There's no mechanism to identify the GM soya from the non-GM on the commodities markets - in countries like the states (who are a big supplier to Europe) Soya is almost 100% GM now.

It's widely used as animal feed throughout Europe.

 

[Wij]

I am only talking about the UK - this stuff is going on elsewhere - why rush to join the party when we have no real need for GM and we can use the time to see if there are any long term effects on those who consume it?

People elsewhere can make their own decisions - if you were in a crisis you would no doubt take a GM fix without worrying too much about the longer term.

We are not in a crisis and can afford to sit back and wait a few more decades - why would you sensibly do otherwise? GM crops are generally solutions to problems we don't have.

Other countries will eventually adopt some GM produce which will mean our farmers will be at a competitive disadvantage. Anyway, why does everything have to be based on NEED? I don't NEED a beer right now but I'm certainly choosing to have one.

 

[rynnor]

Other countries will eventually adopt some GM produce which will mean our farmers will be at a competitive disadvantage. Anyway, why does everything have to be based on NEED? I don't NEED a beer right now but I'm certainly choosing to have one.

Because of the precautionary principle plus the consumer issues are real - people must be able to exercise a choice over this stuff - currently they couldn't.

 

[mr.Blacky]

We can still do that just don't eat it here. There's a big problem over consumer choice, food labelling and the practicalities of whether GM foodstuffs can really be isolated from non-GM in the supply chain. As it is GM soya is being eaten throughout Europe without labelling.

eek! So it aint good enough for the UK but good enough for others? That is rather harsh. Labeling should happen I think, but reality is that we have been eating GM food since it was introduced in Europe, unless you think that insects will know which plants are GM and which are not.
Oh India and the bankrupt farmers is more to do with crap corporation policy than with GM foods.

 

[rynnor]

eek! So it aint good enough for the UK but good enough for others? That is rather harsh.

Yup - tis a hard world - where do you think they trial new drugs?