Anti-GMO activist admits he was wrong

Also, from the article

To feed a growing world population (with an exploding middle class demanding more and better-quality food), we must take advantage of all the technology available to us, including GMOs.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the evidence for this assertion is.

We already produce more than enough food to feed everyone. We were producing more than enough food to feed everyone before the introduction of GMOs. People still starve.

India produces enormous surpluses of wheat (yes, a surplus of wheat, which is not even a GM crop--transgenic wheat is not even on the market) and it still sits and rots while people starve.

1984: India's Food Surplus

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ezekiel84_01.pdf

2000: Food Aid As Dumping

http://www.globalissues.org/article/10/food-aid-as-dumping

2002: Poor In India Starve as Surplus Wheat Rots

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/02/...surplus-wheat-rots.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

2010: Wheat rots in Punjab, but Kashmir Kaur's Family Will Starve

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruhWplaKdRo

2012: India's Poor Starve as Politicians Steal Their Food

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-06/indias-poor-starve-as-politicians-steal-their-food
 
Last edited:
I am not reflexively anti-GMO, even though many people I know are. But what I do think is that patent laws can be very dangerous. I do not think food should be patented. If that hinders R&D on the part of companies like Monsanto, I'd pay taxes to keep food as "open source" everywhere. Food is too intrinsic to our very survival to allow its production to be dictated by the profit motive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Seeds

If the science supports GMO as safe, then I will happily accept the science. But I also oppose regulatory capture and seed patents. Monsanto can sell what it wants, but food seeds should be free, as in free beer, to buy, propagate, replicate, etc. The goal is feeding people, full stop.
 
Unabogie said:
If the science supports GMO as safe, then I will happily accept the science. But I also oppose regulatory capture and seed patents. Monsanto can sell what it wants, but food seeds should be free, as in free beer, to buy, propagate, replicate, etc. The goal is feeding people, full stop.
Click to expand...

The biggest obstacle to feeding people is politics, perhaps along with distribution logistics.

The food is there--there is more than enough food for everyone. I've yet to see any actual evidence that this is caused by the availability of GM crops over the last 19 years, might I add. Especially considering much of the surplus is wheat.

By the way, in addition to wheat, tomatoes on the commercial market are NOT produced with biotechnology--yet in Spain, enough surplus is produced for this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ndIFZ92KC...NvbDyZDj8/s1600/tomatina_festival_2011_01.jpg
 
Last edited:
Wuglife said:
That's an etymological fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

"Genetically modified" in this context refers to foods produced using biotechnology.

No foods we ate prior to 1994 were produced using biotechnology.

You never ate a single GMO food prior to 1994.

Edit: I apologize--the first GM food crop hit the market in '94--I put '96 earlier. Fixed it.
Click to expand...

Nothing that you said here is wrong. Still, essentially all of the critical changes in the economics and nutritional content of food and feed stock are the result of conventional breeding. Monsanto was Monsanto even with conventional hybridization techniques. If wheat has more gluten than it used to, that's conventional breeding. Most of the much-sweeter fruit and vegetables are products of conventional breeding--although I'd like to know about the super-sweet sweet corn and pineapple. That seemed to happen all of a sudden.
 
StankApe said:
The ONE big stink that came up, was when that guy claimed seed from passing trucks ended up on his farm and Monsanto sued him for using their seed without paying for it and won.... I thought that was kind of a crappy thing to do.
Click to expand...
No such thing ever happened.
 
leftysergeant said:
If Monsanto's suicide gene gets into the genome of a regionally-adapted, tradition seed stock of corn, it reduces the possibility of recovering viable populations of corn if Monsanto's **** goes viral. It should never be permitted within 1000 miles of a unique variety of corn. People will starve if that suicide gene spreads.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could explain: exactly how does a suicide gene go viral?
 
leftysergeant said:
If Monsanto's suicide gene gets into the genome of a regionally-adapted, tradition seed stock of corn, it reduces the possibility of recovering viable populations of corn if Monsanto's **** goes viral. It should never be permitted within 1000 miles of a unique variety of corn. People will starve if that suicide gene spreads.
Click to expand...

How, exactly is the gene going to "go viral" when it prevents the next generation from reproducing? It seems to me it's very much a self-limiting gene.

ETA: If it actually existed.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
How, exactly is the gene going to "go viral" when it prevents the next generation from reproducing? It seems to me it's very much a self-limiting gene.

ETA: If it actually existed.
Click to expand...

You need both alelles for the suicide gene. Ever hear of Tay-Sachs?

You only get half of a gene in any sperm or ovum. It might take a couple generations for two of them to meet again, but the possibility increases with each generation.
 
The trechnology exists, and one cotton company shares the patent with the USDA. Monsanto tried to buy the cotton company.

I do not trust a corporation to promise not to screw up the world for profit. Nobody in their right minds would.

The technology should be prohibited on terms more stringent that nuclear non-proliferation, for any crop.

Monsanto can afford to wait until enough countries go fascist that they can get away with it.
 
leftysergeant said:
You need both alelles for the suicide gene. Ever hear of Tay-Sachs?

You only get half of a gene in any sperm or ovum. It might take a couple generations for two of them to meet again, but the possibility increases with each generation.
Click to expand...

Yes but a single case of them meeting again isn't a problem since it only reduces your yield (assuming we are talking about events in a single acre) by 0.001%. There are almost certianly naturaly accuring recesive alleles that do more damage than that.
 
I have never understood the opposition to genetically modified foods. I continue to think it must originate with the scientifically illiterate who are scared of long words.
 
portlandatheist said:
Perhaps you could explain: exactly how does a suicide gene go viral?
Click to expand...
CORed said:
How, exactly is the gene going to "go viral" when it prevents the next generation from reproducing? It seems to me it's very much a self-limiting gene.

ETA: If it actually existed.
Click to expand...
The whole "terminator gene" controversy is a manufactured one; the gene has never been implemented and no one plans to do so.
Ronald Herring covers this particular nonsense in detail in his paper on "Operation Cremate Monsanto", the various claims and the intent of those who made them.

leftysergeant said:
The trechnology exists, and one cotton company shares the patent with the USDA. Monsanto tried to buy the cotton company.
Click to expand...
I think you're referring to D&PL, which was acquired by Monsanto in 2007.

leftysergeant said:
I do not trust a corporation to promise not to screw up the world for profit. Nobody in their right minds would.
Click to expand...
That's why there are regulatory mechanisms. Have you even heard of, for example, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?

leftysergeant said:
The technology should be prohibited on terms more stringent that nuclear non-proliferation, for any crop.
Click to expand...
Hysterical, unscientific nonsense.

leftysergeant said:
Monsanto can afford to wait until enough countries go fascist that they can get away with it.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean?

Travis said:
I have never understood the opposition to genetically modified foods. I continue to think it must originate with the scientifically illiterate who are scared of long words.
Click to expand...
Well said. Have a muffin.
 
Travis said:
I have never understood the opposition to genetically modified foods. I continue to think it must originate with the scientifically illiterate who are scared of long words.
Click to expand...

I just remember that wild, "natural" bananas are inedible and it's only through human breeding (since many many centuries) that they are, and they're a very healthy food, and, yeah...

My local grocery store is so annoying lately. They've started promoting all manners of "bio" and non-GMO foods (which are invariably more expensive too), with stupid slogans such as "good for nature, good for me". Nevermind that GMOs get more crop yields for less space, and therefore destroys the environment less.... ugh, "good for nature" indeed.
 
StankApe said:
The ONE big stink that came up, was when that guy claimed seed from passing trucks ended up on his farm and Monsanto sued him for using their seed without paying for it and won.... I thought that was kind of a crappy thing to do.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about Percy Schmeiser, nothing he did was "innocent". He knew exactly what he was doing, which is why the court found in favor of Monsanto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom