September 3, 2014
To my friends [snip… my friends names] who support Left Actions call to tell the FDA to label genetically engineered foods…
This proud progressive lefty is totally opposed to the labeling of GMO based foods because there is no scientific rational supporting it. If it is true that “90% of Americans” support labeling then 90% of Americans are scientifically naive and have been duped.
Quoting the editors of Scientific American…
— “Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people’s health. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not…” —
Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea
SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM|BY THE EDITORS
- Jerrald Hayes If a layman (laywoman) is going to make the argument that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is real and happening then you can’t turn around and argue against GMOs because the scientific consensus on GMOs is that GMO crops are safe for the environment and human consumption.
- In fact in a document prepared by prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences they stated that…
- — “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” —
- http://www.skeptiforum.org/richard-green-on-the…/September 3, 2014 at 12:04am · Like · Remove Preview
- Richard Green on the Scientific Consensus and GMOs
Richard Green, a new guest-writer for Skepti-Forum,…
- RemoveJerrald Hayes If you spend some time and really dig down on this issue you will find what I found when I went looking for the science. The science and the consensus of scientists in the field and scientists in general supports GMO technology and the loudest voices leading the charge to ban or label GMOs are in many cases cranks and crackpots.
- Look at what I’m reading and if I am wrong please tell why.
- What I’m reading…
Gmos | Rationally Thinking Out Loud
I think if you find yourself on the same side of any health or science issue with the crackpot Gary Null you should immediately reexamine your position. Here Myles Powers dismantles Null’s movie scare mongering “Seeds of Death.”
RATIONALLYTHINKINGOUTLOUD.COMSeptember 3, 2014 at 12:04am · Like · Remove Preview
Lavrans Mathiesen You’re conflating again, Jerrald.
Scientific consensus is that the GMO foods on the market today are safe, but there is no scientific consensus on whether GMO foods should or should not be labeled. Additionally, there IS scientific consensus that GMO foods are potentially more dangerous than what exists today.
One doesn’t lead necessarily to the other.
Also, while the voices you are paying attention to are the crackpots, there are plenty of reasoned positions on why they should be mandated. The simplest, and the one that most resonates with me is that of information. While information is not always the best thing to have, I think that it is critical especially in the extremely poorly understood realms of food and medicine.
This opinion piece that you link to makes the specious argument that knowledge will make people more afraid. I believe the opposite is true- I think that showing people that they have been safely eating “frankenfood” for a long time will dispel some of the ignorance around it.
Any argument that bases it’s logic on the idea that ignorance is better is suspect.
For a nice response from the same magazine, using reasoning from non-crackpots: http://www.scientificamerican.com/…/the-truth-about…/September 3, 2014 at 1:22am · Edited · Like · 1 ·
Proponents of genetically modified crops say the…
SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM|BY DAVID H. FREEDMAN
Jennifer Sugar Frawley What I like about the debate is that there are always two sides…my mom grew up on a farm in Michigan and so much of this is unknown…knowledge is power has been my motto…
September 3, 2014 at 7:46am · Like
Darren Elske · Friends with Lavrans Mathiesen its also really hard to separate the fear of GMO foods (ie. the unknown) from the pure evil that is Monsanto. I find that muddies the discussions quite a bit. Since we mostly dont know or understand what is going on, but we know the main player is bad, the reasonable conclusion is that GMO is bad. Whether or not that is true.September 3, 2014 at 11:19am · Like
Andy Henry I’m not necessarily in favor of banning all GMOs from the face of the earth. What I do oppose is the secrecy in food labeling. GMOs, when monitored, can be beneficial to developing countries and feeding the starving masses. That being said, there needs to be full disclosure as to what is in the food that you and I are buying and putting into bodies. The choice of purchasing based on fully transparent content ingredients needs to be upheld. The fact that large agi-businesses are putting so much money and effort into hiding the fact that their products contain GMOs is very suspect to me. Whats to hide if their products are so fantastic. Let me be the one who decides if I want to ingest it or not. Sticking a GMO label on a bag of carrots will in fact shed a degree of skepticism with the buyer, but it’s our right to know. Left unregulated, as we all know, is never in the best interest of the consumer. This all has the same stench as the fracking companies not having to disclose the chemicals used in their drilling operations. I think we’re finding out where that’s leading us…
September 3, 2014 at 11:20am · Edited · Like
Charles DeCarlo GMO are poison
September 3, 2014 at 12:47pm · Like
Lavrans Mathiesen GMO does not equal poison. It does have more potential for harm (which is why we should know when they are in out food), but that does not mean what is available is poison.
September 3, 2014 at 12:51pm · Like
Jerrald Hayes Lavrans, it’s been said in the scientific community that “GMO opponents are the left’s version of global warming deniers” and you are certainly evidence that that is true and in fact you even use some of the same techniques that climate change deniers use too.
For instance in the climate change arena there have been several peer reviewed meta analyses of the peer reviewed climate related scientific papers quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. i.e Oreskes, 2004; STATS, 2007; Bray and von Storch, 2008; Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009; Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010; Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011; Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012 and perhaps most notably John Cook et al., 2013.
Climate change deniers responded with a paper, Legates, Soon, Briggs, & Monckton et al. (2013) that they published in an obscure off-topic journal called Science and Education (it’s a journal centered on Education not Climate Science). In their alternative paper the took those meta analyses and added one word to their analysis, “catastrophic” and say because so many of the papers reviewed didn’t use the specific word or phrase “catastrophic” that the 97%+ consensus is instead .05%.
You’re doing the exact same thing when you say “there is no scientific consensus on whether GMO foods should or should not be labeled.” And the pro-GMO scientists who are pro-labeling often point out that that will lead to better than 95%+ of the foods purchase having the genetically modified label on them. Neil deGrasse Tyson you’ll recall from the other day said that there should be two kinds of GMO labels,…—“Okay, then label everything, and create two subcategories of GMO. One that indicates laboratory and one that indicates agriculture.”— to distinguish how genes were modified.
And then you pull a real whopper out of your butt with a statement like “there IS scientific consensus that GMO foods are potentially more dangerous than what exists today.” Where in gawds name did that come from?
I was shocked and blown away the other day when you essentially accused Niel Degrasse Tyson of lying when you said that….—“the claim that genetic modification of plants is the same as breeding is a lie”—
Not at all true genetic modification, is Genetic Modification, is GENETIC MODIFICATION regardless of whether it is being done by natural selection, artificial selection (breeding) or by bio-tech and we humans have been doing it for thousands of years.
Your statement that —“there IS scientific consensus that GMO foods are potentially more dangerous than what exists today.”— Is nonsense and just not true at all. At it’s best it’s an extreme—outrageous—super—duper—over—the—top—exaggeration. Really just where in hell do you get something like that from? Mike Adams? Alex Jones? Gary Null?
If anything the scientific community talks about and believes that bio-tech methods of genetic modification are more precise and more controlled than natural and artificial selection.
I really start to wonder at times if at your core just a anti-science fear mongered because you then even went on to use the ridiculous anti-science phrase “Frankenfood.”
But enough of the very necessary ad hominems,…you are wrong on almost every single count of the science around GMOs and there is no scientific support for any of your claims.
In fact the David H. Freedman Scientific American article you cited in your comment even argues against your point that —““there IS scientific consensus that GMO foods are potentially more dangerous than what exists today.”— the cellular biologist David Williams that states he has a cautionary position even himself admits in the article that he is part of “A TINY MINORITY of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops.” (And the article even argues for my position that bio-tech is more precise and selective a technique too).
Again I asked you the other week just regarding the similarities between bio-tech and natural and artificial selection (they are all methods of Genetic Modification when did the word SIMILAR really means TOTALLY DIFFERENT,… I have to ask you today when did the words A TINY MINORITY come to mean there is a scientific consensus that “GMO foods are potentially more dangerous” Really I can’t believe you actually said that. That is stark raving mad scientific denial at 100 mph. Nothing could be further from the truth.
By the way Lavrans, after our discussion a few weeks ago I continued to read articles by scientists these past two or three weeks I have not found one article that agrees with your position that bio-tech is somehow intrinsically more dangerous than natural and artificial selection and I also surprisingly to got the chance to talk to a real live food scientist in the flesh too who agreed with me. She said bio-tech is just another more modern and precise method of genetic modification. I did find one article that agreed with your position entitled ‘Why Neil deGrasse Tyson is Dead Wrong About GMOs” you can google it, I won’t link to it, but it was written by a guy, WHO IS NOT A SCIENTIST, who has written a book entitled “Thee Psychick Bible” (sic) among others and the site it was on promotes education in magick (sic), astrology, and using lucid dreaming to direct your reality. He is one of the crack pots I have sometimes referred to on your side.
Back on my side again Dr. Alan McHughen, a molecular geneticist with an interest in crop improvement and environmental sustainability, writing in the book ‘The Lowdown on GMOs: According to Science’ writes….
—“…In contrast, I could find no professional scientific or medical bodies anywhere in the world publishing a peer reviewed study concluding GM methods were higher risk than conventional breeding methods.”—
Again,…NOT A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED STUDY CONCLUDING GM METHODS WERE HIGHER RISK THAN CONVENTIONAL BREEDING METHODS and yet you made the bald faced claim that there was a scientific consensus to the contrary. No there is NO SUCH THING.
September 3, 2014 at 3:06pm · Like
Jerrald Hayes Jennifer while yes the are always two sides (if not more) to any debate that doesn’t mean all the positions in a debate are valid and supported by the evidence. Regarding the scientific evidence….(the emphasis is mine)
—“A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue.
Those claims are simply not true. EVERY MAJOR INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE BODY IN THE WORLD HAS REVIEWED MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT STUDIES—IN SOME CASES NUMBERING IN THE HUNDREDS—IN COMING TO THE CONSENSUS CONCLUSION THAT GMO CROPS ARE AS SAFE OR SAFER THAN CONVENTIONAL OR ORGANIC FOODS, but the magnitude of the research has never been evaluated or documented.
Still the claim that GMOs are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted at the beginning of this article—has become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, A TEAM OF ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CATALOGED AND ANALYZED 1783 STUDIES ABOUT THE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GMO FOODS—A STAGGERING NUMBER.
THE RESEARCHERS COULDN’T FIND A SINGLE CREDIBLE EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATING THAT GM FOODS POSE ANY HARM TO HUMANS OR ANIMALS. “THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CONDUCTED SO FAR HAS NOT DETECTED ANY SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE USE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS,” THE SCIENTISTS CONCLUDED.
The research review, published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last decade—from 2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of GM technology….”—
Yes there are two sides to the climate change debate but one side unlike the other is supported by the evidence. There are scientists, a very tiny minority that believe the earth is flat, really,…there are but only one side in the argument (the earth is a globe) is supported by the evidence. There are people and again a very tiny minority of scientists that believe the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old when all the evidence supports the belief that the world is around 4.6 billion years old.
I choose to stand with the vast majority scientists who are experts on the subject of Genetic Modification whether its natural selection, artificial selection or bio-tech.
With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed…
RemoveJerrald Hayes Darren, I used to think the same way as you regarding Monsanto too but I have been moved on that position too. While I I am still opposed to Big-Ag on principle I no longer believe in any way the Monsanto is evil meme and realize I was suckered and manipulated into that thinking by ideologues. I would ask you for a start to listen to Dr. Steven Novella’s (head of the New England Skeptical Society and founder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine) has to say in the podcast “The Skeptics Guide to the Universe On Monsanto Myths.”
( http://rationallythinkingoutloud.com/?p=8943 )
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe On Monsanto Myths | Rationally Thinking Out Loud
An excerpt from a podcast of The Skeptics’ Guide To The Universe… Dr. Steven Novella discusses urban myths about Monsanto.
RATIONALLYTHINKINGOUTLOUD.COMSeptember 3, 2014 at 3:09pm · Like · Remove Preview
RemoveJerrald Hayes And Chuck! Seriously? Your argument is just so convincing you got me to flip my position again,….
….no NOT really.
Come on,…if you do really think that at least offer your thinking why. My buddy Lavrans although we almost couldn’t possibly disagree anymore than we do at least offers a thought out position to examine and look at. I at least read whatever he writes and in the spirit of good debate try to find a reason or reasons he might be correct.
September 3, 2014 at 3:10pm · Like
While I think maybe I once was but now knowing that there is “No science-based reason to justify mandatory GMO labeling” I’m not suspect of that at all and instead find myself agreeing that it confuses the public. Have you ever seen how many people in a crowd you can get to fall for a petition banning DiHydrogen MonOxide?
Why don’t we ask for label foods that contain DiHydrogen MonOxide or foods where DiHydrogen MonOxide was used in the processing? Wouldn’t that be in the best interest of the consumer?
No I don’t think so because its reckless pointless fear mongering.
Also 90%+ of all the foods we purchase are genetically modified. Instead a far less expensive alternative to labeling GMOs would be to label foods that were certified non-GMO.
As for —“This all has the same stench as the fracking companies not having to disclose the chemicals used in their drilling operations.”— No, I don’t think that is all the same. We don’t have thousands of studies and a scientific consensus saying that the chemicals used in tracking pose no risk to the public.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw )
Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition
Penn and Teller get hippies to sign a petition that bans…
YOUTUBE.COMSeptember 3, 2014 at 4:18pm · Like · Remove Preview
RemoveAndy Henry I don’t know how your ban H20 video is connected to this discussion. More than 20 countries including China and India have bans both partially or totally of GMOs. China, a country with questionable ethics when it comes to exports and India, a country with over 1 billion people considered malnourished, would rather let their people starve than feed them GMOs. As misguided as this is, it still has to raise a red flag of concern. In the US, we’re not even attempting to ban or even partially ban. All we’re asking for is fair and accurate labeling. Whats the big deal? Why are politicians and lobbyists putting up such a road block? What are they hiding from us? Stick a label on a banana and let the people decide.
September 3, 2014 at 5:27pm · Edited · Like
RemoveJerrald Hayes Andy the argument that X amount of countries have banned GMOs only indicates that X amount of countries have ignored the science and the scientific experts and have bowed to political pressure from special interest groups.
In the GMO Skeptics Forum here on FaceBook a comment made by a fellow named Matt Eli makes the point about the “Band WagonFallacy” better than I can….
—“Cameroon and Saudi Arabia are the only two countries on earth where witchcraft is on its official criminal law. 13 countries mandate the death penalty for people who “either openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion.” 19 countries ban leaving Islam. 6 Western countries have the crime of “blasphemy” Those countries are Iceland (a sentence of jail for up to 3 months), Denmark (up to 4 months), New Zealand (up to a year), Poland (up to two years), Germany (up to three years) and Greece (up to three years). And 81 have made homosexuality a crime. Just because everyone else jumps off bridges doesn’t mean you need to.”—
Is the United States acute lack of action on climate change “raise a red flag of concern” regarding what 98% of what the world climate scientists are telling us about climate? As Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said an popularized “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
When someone (my old buddy Andy Clifford) makes the argument that X amount of countries have banned GMOs I say I don’t care about that, and instead ask who are and what are the scientific experts saying. Really who are the (respected) scientific experts outside of David Suzuki that are calling for the ban or restriction of GMOs. Really who are they?
—“China, a country with questionable ethics when it comes to exports and India, a country with over 1 billion people considered malnourished, would rather let their people starve than feed them GMOs.”—
And this is the real tragedy of this misguided anti-science campaign against GMOs. In fact in the talk amongst the scientific community that the organizations, the companies, and the people that have brought about bans and restrictions on GMOs need to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.
The point I was making with people not understanding that DiHydrogen MonOxide is really H20 is that most people are scientifically and certainly genetically illiterate and are really unqualified to make judgments about whether or not GMOs are healthy or healthy and if they see GMO labeling on food products they will be swayed towards thinking there is something wrong with GMOs which we scientifically know is absolutely untrue.
Golden Rice Opponents Should Be Held Accountable for Health Problems Linked…
RemoveJerrald Hayes nd with regard to “What are they hiding from us? Stick a label on a banana and let the people decide.” here is a look a look at a all natural banana and one that has been genetically manipulated…
September 3, 2014 at 6:44pm · Like
RemoveAndy Henry Whether or not the the general public are either lemmings or ignorant, has nothing to do with the issue that Monsanto, Cargill, Unileaver or whatever agi-company out there, is spending unprecedented amounts of their own capital as well as tax payer money desperately attempting to hide the chemical compounds and ingredients of their modified foods from the general public. Why is that? If you are going to state the up cost of implementing labeling standards on the “local farm” that supplies the big agri-farmers, well the organic “small farmers” have been doing it for a decade. Yes, they complain about hardships and record keeping costs, but they are still at it and reporting record profits as the organic food market grows almost 20% per year over the last decade.
September 3, 2014 at 10:54pm · Like
RemoveAndy Henry “Facts are the enemy of truth” Squirrels prefer non-GMO corn. As if either of our graphics are even accurate… they have nothing to do with the fact that we as Americans are not being given the right to choose for ourselves. I would never suggest that you or anyone would not be able to buy GMO foods, cigarettes, booze, cars without seat belts or what have you. What I adamantly disagree with is not being given the right to choose for myself without inference from big money…
September 3, 2014 at 11:05pm · Like
Labeling apparently carries the stigma.
I think they should try a simple tidbit of information.
They’re in everything.
It’s the business that’s poison, not the GMO.September 3, 2014 at 11:08pm · Like
RemoveAndy Henry As to the golden rice argument:http://www.naturalnews.com/042212_golden_rice_debunked…#
September 3, 2014 at 11:21pm · Like
—“Monsanto, Cargill, Unileaver or whatever agi-company out there, is spending unprecedented amounts of their own capital as well as tax payer money desperately attempting to hide the chemical compounds and ingredients of their modified foods from the general public. Why is that?”—
First of all the amount of money bio-tech companies isn’t unprecedented. Thats is just hyperbole. But what is unprecedented and unfair is the money they are spending is being spent in defense of proven technology against unproven unscientific attacks from special interest groups and the organic food industry.
Which brings me to one of the other things that is wrong misguided and misinformed in that statement. There are no chemical compounds being hid in bio-tech it a method not a compound or ingredient being secretly added to a food product. I don’t know whether you meant to really write that statement the way you did but or if that is just a slip of the tongue (keyboard) but if it wasn’t it demonstrates the big part of the problem that I already have brought up that people don’t really understand what GMO bio-tech really is. Most people don’t really know what is going on.
And they are spending tax payer money defending the technology? That a new one I have never heard before and I wondering just where a claim like that could possibly come from? Sounds like something Alex Jones might say. You would have to provide a really good piece of investigative journalism to substantiate a claim like that for me to believe that.
As for “Why is that?” why wouldn’t they defend their technology? Come on they have a powerful progressive technology that is more precise and will deliver genetic modification faster with more directed design faster than artificial selection can. Why wouldn’t they stand up and defend their technology against all the unfound unscientific attacks?
And what makes you think that all organic farmers are small farmers or that small farmers don’t use bio-tech seed products and technology? Many organic farms are owned or bought and paid for by the big giant food companies like Heinz Kraft, Dean Foods, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, and Wallmart. “In 1995 there were 81 independent organic processing companies in the United States. A decade later, Big Food had gobbled up all but 15 of them.”
And to tell you the truth this kind of Big Ag Big Organic argument is really a red herring and has nothing at all to do with the safety and scientific validity of GMO bio-tech.
September 4, 2014 at 7:41pm · Like
RemoveJerrald Hayes “Facts are the enemy of truth!” That is Cervantes from Don Quixote de la Mancha
Squirrels prefer non-GMO corn? The Paul Fonders demonstatrtion that statement is based on in a joke. The is nothing really factual there because his demonstration was so incredibly unscientific.
There is no scientific peer reviewed study that says squirrels prefer non-GMO corn. Do you have any idea of just how many varieties of corn there are and perhaps the squirrel preference had nothing at all to do with the corn being GMO or non-GMO and had everything to do with the particular variety of corn? In fact how about this for an explanation of the photo,… the squirrels chose to eat the corn on the right before they started on the cob on the left. Or maybe because the non-GMO ear was older and drier the corn kernels were more easily removed by the squirrels so they ate/harvested that ear first.
Paul Fonders anecdotal test is ridiculous and even if it was scientifically valid the very small percentage of scientist that do question GMOs would have replicated it under real scientific study conditions. This farmers experiment had too many experimental conditions that were not reported. There was no peer review. The sample size is ridiculously small. There was no blinding. It’s a joke. The only ones reporting that trash are anti-GMO agenda websites. There is zip nadda nothing in any of the scientific journals nor is there any reporting of this so-called discovery in any of the science reporting magazines.
This guy repeated the Fonders squirrel experiment with a little bit larger sample under more scientifically controlled conditions and dismantled it…
Do Squirrels Reject Genetically Modified Corn?
(CC button turns subtitles on/off. YT will automatically…
YOUTUBE.COMSeptember 4, 2014 at 7:44pm · Like · Remove Preview
RemoveJerrald Hayes Keith Macksoud: as I mentioned earlier in this discussion I am not at all sure Monsanto and the other Bio-Tech companies are the evil villlons so many activists are making them out to be. I would encourage you to listen to Dr. Steven Novella’s (head of the New England Skeptical Society and founder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine) podcast “The Skeptics Guide to the Universe On Monsanto Myths.”
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe On Monsanto Myths | Rationally Thinking…
RemoveLavrans Mathiesen You still haven’t figured out what I have said, have you, Jerrald?
Read again without your prejudices.
You are mistaking the safety of current GMO crops as PROOF THAT GM is the same process and same safety as hybrids.
That is flawed logic. Actually, it is not logic, it is opinion.
GM does NOT equal poison, but plants AND animals can be genetically manipulated in ways that are not possible through breeding. That is FACT, not opinion.
That means that GM is NOT the same as modifying a plant or animal through breeding.
ND Tyson saying his opinion does not equal science.
September 4, 2014 at 7:53pm · Like
RemoveLavrans Mathiesen For an example of something NOT POSSIBLE through breeding, here are some examples-
Note- I am not saying dangerous or poisonous, just things that are possible.
Get it? Things you can’t do (well, in less than tens of thousands of years) without the technology of genetic modification (as opposed to breeding).
GM is a new technology. It is not plant or animal husbandry. All it is is a NEW technology, and like ALL new technology it carries risks and benefits specific to it.September 4, 2014 at 8:10pm · Like · Remove Preview
10 Insane Cases of Genetic Engineering – Listverse
You’re probably familiar with South Korea’s…
RemoveJerrald Hayes Lavrans I have read your posts over and over and over trying to find a way that you might be correct in your thinking that GMO BioTech is somehow more dangerous than the traditional methods of genetic modification and in my reading I never ran across anything that supports your position (except that one article from the one activist kook I already mentioned) and when I read the links you give me I find they are in agreement with my position and not yours. I have come to think you can’t read anything on this topic without your incredibly deep-seated bias influencing what you then think you have read.
With regard to —“You are mistaking the safety of current GMO crops as PROOF THAT GM is the same process and same safety as hybrids.”—
No I am not saying that I have never said that. That is a straw man you created.
All the current crops of GMO products are perfectly safe. None have ever been demonstrated to show ill effects on any human costuming them. PERIOD.
Can GMO BioTech (gene splicing), the technique, be used to potentially create a food product that is dangerous and would harm humans? Yes, that is entirely possible but it wouldn’t be due to any kind of intrinsic risk or danger in the technology. It would be due to a “mad scientist” taking the technology and intentionally inserting genes with undesirable characteristics and THAT COULD ALSO BE DONE USING ARTIFICIAL SELECTION TOO although not with the speed or precision that the bio-tech method has.
There is no inherent risk in Bio-Tech Gene splicing as a technique it is as I have said, Dawkins has said, Degrasse Tyson has said, Dr. Pamela Ronald has said, and many other scientists have said over and over, its just another method of genetic manipulation (albeit more precise controlled and faster than traditional techniques). PERIOD
Reagrding — “GM does NOT equal poison, but plants AND animals can be genetically manipulated in ways that are not possible through breeding. That is FACT, not opinion.” —
Your FACT is only half correct. Plants and animals can be genetically manipulated in terrible and dangerous ways via more traditional method too. A perfect example is some of the defects we now have in dogs today. Case and point,…canine hip dysplasia. That didn’t come about via bio-tech, it was artificial selection.
Your problem is you have some misguided thinking that bio-tech is inherently riskier or more dangerous than tradition method and THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.
Regarding — “ND Tyson saying his opinion does not equal science.”
No NdGT alone does not equal science but every scientist I have read saying it does and that indicates to me there is a scientific consensus that says natural selection, artificial selection, mutagenesis, and bio-tech gene splicing are all just methods and techniques used in Genetic Manipulation.
(In fact with all your fear mongering about bio-tech gene splicing I am shocked and surprised that you never mentioned the more traditional technique of mutagenesis which IS a more risky and dangerous a technique than bio-tech gene splicing. How come you never brought it up?)
Listen if there is something dramatically and inherently dangerous or risky in bio-tech gene splicing tell me where in the articles by and about Dr. Pamela Arnold does she say exactly that. Same thing with David H. Freedman’s SA article you linked to yesterday. What page, what sentence, in there did I miss that would have proven your point?
And with regard to NdGT who while a physicist has spent a life-time in the sciences vs. the opinion of Lavrans Wenttolunch a carpenter builder (or even me) who is more qualified and educated on what the science tells us about genetic manipulation? I’ll default to NdGT’s thinking until I find a more qualified scientist in the Bio-Tech field that disagrees with him.
Listen I’ve done everything I can to try and find a way you might be correct on this and it just hasn’t gone your way. I’ve done my own reading, I’ve read all the links you have ever given me and I am still not convinced you are in anyway correct (and in fact your links only reinforced my position, not yours). I’m going to give you some help,…here are some names of some scientists and sort-of-scientists that I know have anti-GMO positions. Maybe they have something that supports your position.
Gilles-Éric Séralini, Charles Benbrook, Judy Carman, Stephanie Seneff, Anthony Samsel, Vandana Shiva, David Suzuki, Don Huber, and Theirry Vrain
Go find something they have said and we’ll fisk that.
September 4, 2014 at 9:41pm · Like
Jerrald Hayes And by the way, I actually read “10 Insane Cases of Genetic Engineering” a couple of weeks ago. YES those are example of thing scientists can do with bio-tech that would be unrealistic to achieve via traditional methods of genetic modification. DUH! You apparently don’t understand that artificial selection and mutagenesis still rely very heavily on chance (whereas I have said repeatedly bio-tech is much more precise, controlled and faster).
Plus you can’t use artificial selection and mutagenesis to introduce fish genes into a tomato (although I not too sure about mutagenesis which as I understand it could possibly excite or reactivate inactive fish genes in the tomato genome, I don’t know enough about mutagenesis, but I do know some people I can ask)
The one thing I didn’t like about Andrew Handley’s otherwise excellent article was the title. “Insane” is inflammatory and I am sure it appeals to the fear mongerer in you. I think exceptional, amazing, astonishing, astounding, marvelous, wonderful, sensational, stunning, incredible, phenomenal, outstanding, surprising; terrific, tremendous, stupendous, awesome; wondrous and sublime would all have been a better choice of words than “insane.” But then again that could have been his editors decision too.
September 4, 2014 at 9:43pm · Like
Jerrald Hayes Dan, while I track most of what I read regarding GMOs on my RationallyThinkingOutLoud blog there is a great free book “The Lowdown on GMOs: According to Science” by Fourat Janabithat that I have referred to a couple of times that I have found incredibly educational in giving me some foundation on the topic and you can get it here….
The Lowdown on GMOs: According to Science, an Ebook by Fourat Janabi
Distrust of GMOs has increased in recent years from…
Lavrans Mathiesen Jerrald- again, you are stuck in your prejudices.
We can go anywhere you want with this, but first you have to get your conceited notion that you think I am anti-GMO out of your head.
That’s purely your invention.
September 4, 2014 at 9:59pm · Like
Lavrans Mathiesen Next- learn to read the articles you are linking to. Many are partially opinions, but some are actual science. All of them that delve into the difference between GM and traditional breeding point out that they are different methods, different technologies.
September 4, 2014 at 10:00pm · Like
Jerrald Hayes Andy with regard to Mike Adams’ Natural News article “Golden rice debunked: ten blatant contradictions and false claims of genetically modified rice” all I can tell you is that Adams is a well known kook and crank with absolutely no scientific credential of any kind and he doesn’t cite any peer reviewed science anywhere in the article he written on Golden Rice. The only citations he makes are to other articles written by non-scientists on his Natural News website.
He’s a conspiracy theorist who hasn’t ever found an alt med treatment he doesn’t like (or can even be used to cure cancer). He’s linked drinking mil to autism and he’s writes a lot about chemtrails. He’s an AIDS denialist, a 9/11 truther, a birther, and a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy advocate.
The article itself isn’t even worth fisking.
There is this axiom that is often seen floating around discussions on the internet called Scopie’s Law which states:
“In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately… and gets you laughed out of the room.” Scopie’s Law was expanded to include Mike Adams and his Natural News site.
( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scopie%27s_Law#Scopie.27s_Law )September 4, 2014 at 10:02pm · Like · Remove Preview
Whale.to – RationalWiki
Whale.to is a website run by English pig farmer John Scudamore. Scudamore has a long history of trying…
Lavrans Mathiesen Next- you really need to read up on what we actually know about genetics and how much we know about food.
Start here; it is simple, and gives a little primer on genetics.- http://www.scientificamerican.com/…/dna-at-60-still…/
Then move on to what we know about the relationship between genes and food. Here’s a little partial- you can look for more: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/…/obesit…/genes-and-obesity/September 4, 2014 at 10:05pm · Like · Remove Preview
DNA at 60: Still Much to Learn
On the diamond jubilee of the double helix, we should admit that we don’t fully understand how evolution…
SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM|BY PHILIP BALL, NATURE MAGAZINE
Lavrans Mathiesen Eventually you may realize that it’s simply different technology, and that technology has a different set of benefits and hazards. Until then, you can continue thinking that a nuclear power plant is the same as a campfire.
September 4, 2014 at 10:06pm · Like
Jerrald Hayes Lavrans I am only elevating the conceit here to match up to yours. You love that word conceit and use it in almost ever debate your in. It seems like whenever you are in disagreement you resort to blaming it on conceit or a conceit.
I’ll ask you again in the articles by and about Dr. Pamela Arnold where exactly in those article did she say something I missed that would prove your point. Same thing with David H. Freedman’s SA article you linked to yesterday. What page what sentence in there did I miss that would have proven your point.
Really go back into them and tell me what I missed. Not only have a read them I read them a couple of times now.
I read every single word in the articles I cite and the articles you cite too you arrogant…Please just get off your high horse. The only thing I don’t waste my time reading is Natural News articles which I am sure you wouldn’t waste you time on either.
Really Lavrans if you are pro-GMO or at least agnostic-GMO why all the bullshit fear mongering language about it? Why are you heavily focusing on criticizing me on what might just be a matter of semantics rather than the anti-GMO paranoia that is out there?
— “Eventually you may realize that it’s simply different technology, and that technology has a different set of benefits and hazards.” — DUH! And I have said just that before. You really need to read what I write.
— “Until then, you can continue thinking that a nuclear power plant is the same as a campfire.”—
Bad analogy, your “nuclear power plant is the same as a campfire” is something of a red herring and straw man. A better analogy would have been gas fired power plant vs. coal fired power plant vs nuclear power plant AND THEY ARE ALL MORE SIMILAR THAN THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
And again I’ll ask you regarding the similarities between bio-tech and natural and artificial selection (they are all methods of Genetic Modification) when did the word SIMILAR really means TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
September 4, 2014 at 10:27pm · Like
Jerrald Hayes I am going to take back what I said about mutagenesis possibly being able to “excite or reactivate inactive fish genes in the tomato genome.” Reading up on some more on it this evening as I’m watch Federer vs Monfils it pretty quicky apparent to me that is not how it works. I was wrong in guessing that might be possible or perhaps I should say I am 98% sure I was wrong.
Mutagenesis – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mutagenesis /mjuːtəˈdʒɛnɪsɪs/ is a process by which the…
Lavrans Mathiesen You are experiencing what is called confirmation bias Jerrald.
I can’t say anything that you will hear because you are only trying to confirm your bias.
If you were rational you would understand that I haven’t been fear mom geeing, but talking about the differences in technology.
I used fire and nuclear specifically because they are apparently similar and both carry fear. Both work by changing the property(s) of an object to release energy. They are similar, but require vastly different technology.
One can say fire is carbon neutral, but imagine everything lit and heated by nuclear power being lit and heated with campfires. We would run out of trees and have an ecological nightmare on our hands.
A nuclear plant is vastly better as an option; cleaner, safer, easier to control. But- the nuclear plant is a technology which requires skills, specialized equipment, and produces a waste product that appears benign while being extremely dangerous.
One is more laden with fears because it is not well understood. The other carries a lot of problems behind a veneer of familiarity that also hides enormous ignorance.
The similarities do not mean that one can ignore the dangers of either one, or to rationally allow someone to claim that a match is the same as a reactor. The similarities are accompanied by differences.
If anyone happens to think fire is benign they should probably study Dresden alongside Nagasaki.
September 5, 2014 at 12:03am · Like
Jerrald Hayes Bullshit Lavrans, I am really going out of my way to find a way you might be correct but you are so cock sure arrogant that you actually inferred that Neil DeGrasse Tyson was lying when he made his statement humans performing genetic modification for thousands of years because it doesn’t fit with your personal world view that there is something inherently and intrinsically out of the ordinary dangerous with bio-tech gene splicing technology. Yes, right, you are more qualified on scientific topics than Neil DeGrasse Tyson. What incredible arrogance. I was blown away astounded when you first said that about a week or two ago and tried to keep my incredulity under wraps but you just won’t let it go. You know something NdGT doesn’t. Amazing!
I mean my god if Tyson was as wrong as you say he is a lot of other scientists would have spoken up in up roar and written about it wouldn’t they have? Where are they? Who are they? (hint: they didn’t because he was perfectly correct in saying what he said)
Everything I have read (except for that one kook I previously mentioned) has basically just said that bio-tech gene splicing is just more precise, controlled, and faster than traditional methods of genetic manipulation (and therefore we can call it “more powerful”).
I even used google scholar to look for scientific papers that would support your position so don’t give me any of this confirmation bias bull shit. As I said earlier “I have come to think you can’t read anything on this topic without your incredibly deep-seated bias influencing what you then think you have read.” I was referring to you own confirmation bias when I wrote that in case you missed that clue.
I then asked you to show me where in the articles you cited I had missed the text that made your point and you either aren’t reading what I am writing or are ignoring the challenge because there isn’t anything in the articles you cited supporting what you are saying. I am still waiting for your clarification instead I just get apologetics as you temper, modify, and try to rationalize your earlier posts. Cut the crap and explain to me why you linked to the posts you did. What the F did I miss?
Until you produce an article or a paper that does support it this will be the end of the discussion. I think you are being argumentative perhaps purely for sake of being an augmentative contrarian.
—“The similarities do not mean that one can ignore the dangers of either one, or to rationally allow someone to claim that a match is the same as a reactor. The similarities are accompanied by differences.”—
NO SHIT. Really NO SHIT,…Go back to the discussion we had on GMOs the other day and find the post where I said almost exactly that. (Iinked to it below)
—“Bonobos and Chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA and yet they are not the same. Biotechnical Gene Splicing is to Artificial Selection as Bonobos are to Chimpanzees. Despite their very distinct differences in reality they are way more similar than they are different.”—
You just want to say that they are way more different than they are the same because that fits into your world view where GMO technology is uncertain, scary and potentially dangerous. They (genetic manipulation techniques) are not, they are more similar than they are different.
And if anything given the precision and control of bio-tech gene splicing it is safer and more predictable than the traditional natural selection, artificial selection, and mutagenesis and therefore safer. I would dig for the articles and quotes in what I’ve read that support that claim but I’m just not wasting anymore time on you tonight.
September 5, 2014 at 12:58am · Like
Lavrans Mathiesen There you again. Every post you have invented something and attributed it to me.
It is called confirmation bias.
September 5, 2014 at 1:04am · Like
Lavrans Mathiesen What you are ignoring is that it isn’t true that it is the same thing to create a new hybrid through breeding as it is to do it with GM. You are mixing up end-results with the technology of how to do it.
One doesn’t need to be afraid of technology to know that every technology has its own special set of problems. That doesn’t mean you reject the technology because you know it has dangers, but it also means you don’t ignore those dangers just because you use the technology.
What I see you doing, that I believe is disingenuous and false, is calling it the same thing to create a varietal by breeding or GM. GM has benefits and it has hazards. Those hazards are different from breeding. Hybrids are NOT necessarily better, and hybrids have more limits.
You have stated, that asking for GMO labeling is the same thing as being anti-GMO. I believe that’s an inflammatory and ignorant statement. One can accept a technology and still want to be informed about it.
September 5, 2014 at 9:05am · Like · 1