Monsanto

[Childlike Empress]

I'd guess you read the Schmeiser case and thought "oops", right?

Nope. There's a reason why this guy is a internationally famous spokesperson and the audio I recommended to the OP goes far beyond his own case. You too: Take it or leave it. I did not intend to "discuss" this with people who are obviously deep in denial, so I hope that explains my usage of the big laughing dog as the biggest effort I could bring myself to, beside the original recommendation.

 

[GlennB]

You too: Take it or leave it. I did not intend to "discuss" this with people who are obviously deep in denial ....

I'm not "in denial". In fact I tended to accept the idea that Monsanto protected their interests with the aggressive persecution of innocent farmers whose crops had been merely cross-pollinated by GM crops nearby (on the general grounds that megacorps are usually total bastards). I couldn't find any evidence for that, in fact the contrary.

 

[Segnosaur]

Protesters in over 400 cities march vs Monsanto

Why exactly is that relevant?

Do those people have any actual real hard scientific evidence to show that commercially available genetically modified food is somehow harmful?

For better or worse, you don't really need much brain power to 'protest' anything. You could be as scientifically illiterate as a clump of dirt and still protest. I'm reminded of an episode of Penn & Teller's B.S. where they went to an environmental protest and asked people to sign a petition banning 'Dihydro Monoxide'. Lots of people signed, despite the fact that they had no idea what they were signing against, and were actually petitioning to ban water. I suspect the people that were at these protests were pretty much in the same boat... scientifically ignorant, but just protesting because the cause 'sounds good'.

Heck, there have been recent mass protests against gay marriage, gun control and immigration reform. Just because there were a large number of protesters does that mean those doing the protesting are right? Or does it just mean that they are capable of walking and carrying a sign?

 

[Segnosaur]

I do, because you're missing the point and the nature of the problem by far with your interpretation of this court case. I suggest you listen to what the man says himself - it's an extremely educational one hour interview.

Did it ever occur to you that 'the man', during his interview, may be attempting put himself in the best possible light, by downplaying things that he intentionally did wrong?

More importantly, did it ever occur to you that you are viewing the issue with an incredibly biased view of the issue which makes it impossible to view the issue with a rational mindset, and that if anyone else that doesn't have an axe to grind with Monsanto might listen to the exact same interview and think 'Meh.... this isn't really that convincing'?

 

[Aepervius]

I'm not "in denial". In fact I tended to accept the idea that Monsanto protected their interests with the aggressive persecution of innocent farmers whose crops had been merely cross-pollinated by GM crops nearby (on the general grounds that megacorps are usually total bastards). I couldn't find any evidence for that, in fact the contrary.

SAme here. If childempress would look at my psoting history she would find out I was actually on the farmer side.... Until I got the evidence right and understood the case.

*shrug* she can petulantely ignore the evidence but they are now linked in this thread for any lurker to consider.

 

[catsmate]

And certain members of this forum wouldn't admit a business was dirty if it were caught on film wallowing in pig filth...

As usual, you don't even bother trying to refute the facts presented, just throw poo...

What facts? You cite HuffPoo, CFS and Mercola as if they were valid sources. Go find some proper science.

Protesters in over 400 cities march vs Monsanto

So what? Is the fact that some people protested supposed to mean something?

 

[jhunter1163]

The FDA says there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO crops. Most corn and soybeans sold in the USA are already GMO. I haven't noticed any epidemics of third-eye or spontaneous limb growth among corn-eaters.

 

[Dymanic]

Do those people have any actual real hard scientific evidence to show that commercially available genetically modified food is somehow harmful?

Without even going into that, it seems to me that it might be reasonably argued that people have a right to some say-so regarding what goes into their food.

For example, various types of insects and their larvae have long been important parts of traditional diets in many cultures, but people who are not products of those cultures often tend to view the idea as highly repulsive. Do those people have an obligation to provide hard scientific evidence showing that the inclusion of significant amounts of insect proteins in commercially available food is somehow harmful before they have a right to, say, be informed through labeling practices as to whether the foods they purchase do in fact contain such ingredients?

 

[GlennB]

Without even going into that, it seems to me that it might be reasonably argued that people have a right to some say-so regarding what goes into their food.

For example, various types of insects and their larvae have long been important parts of traditional diets in many cultures, but people who are not products of those cultures often tend to view the idea as highly repulsive. Do those people have an obligation to provide hard scientific evidence showing that the inclusion of significant amounts of insect proteins in commercially available food is somehow harmful before they have a right to, say, be informed through labeling practices as to whether the foods they purchase do in fact contain such ingredients?

I'm all for information on what I'm eating, but I have to say that "Pure FoodX v. FoodX+bug debris" seems like rather a different kettle of fish than "GM FoodX v. non-GM FoodX"

 

[jhunter1163]

Without even going into that, it seems to me that it might be reasonably argued that people have a right to some say-so regarding what goes into their food.

For example, various types of insects and their larvae have long been important parts of traditional diets in many cultures, but people who are not products of those cultures often tend to view the idea as highly repulsive. Do those people have an obligation to provide hard scientific evidence showing that the inclusion of significant amounts of insect proteins in commercially available food is somehow harmful before they have a right to, say, be informed through labeling practices as to whether the foods they purchase do in fact contain such ingredients?

Red herring. As I said in my previous post, the FDA (you know, the Food and Drug Administration) has deemed GMO crops safe to use. Do any of the people railing against these crops have any evidence that they are in any way unsafe?

 

[The Man]

Without even going into that, it seems to me that it might be reasonably argued that people have a right to some say-so regarding what goes into their food.

For example, various types of insects and their larvae have long been important parts of traditional diets in many cultures, but people who are not products of those cultures often tend to view the idea as highly repulsive. Do those people have an obligation to provide hard scientific evidence showing that the inclusion of significant amounts of insect proteins in commercially available food is somehow harmful before they have a right to, say, be informed through labeling practices as to whether the foods they purchase do in fact contain such ingredients?

They are actually a consequence of any large scale food processing. FDA regulations restrict such content and as far as I know labeling regulations would already require such insect ingredients to be listed if they were an intended part of the food and not just a “defect”.




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


http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceReg...mation/SanitationTransportation/ucm056174.htm



http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?cfrpart=101

 

[Dymanic]

Red herring.

It may be. Indulge me for a bit, and I'll be interested to see if I end up agreeing.

As I said in my previous post, the FDA (you know, the Food and Drug Administration) has deemed GMO crops safe to use. Do any of the people railing against these crops have any evidence that they are in any way unsafe?

For the sake of argument, assume for the moment that it might be possible to raise insects specifically for use in foods intended for human consumption, and to process the insect proteins in such a way as to render them safe. Would you insist that objections to this practice could only be entertained if they rested solely on the claim that it was somehow not safe?

 

[jhunter1163]

For the sake of argument, assume for the moment that it might be possible to raise insects specifically for use in foods intended for human consumption, and to process the insect proteins in such a way as to render them safe. Would you insist that objections to this practice could only be entertained if they rested solely on the claim that it was somehow not safe?

If someone objected to insect proteins on what is technically* known as the "ick" basis, I could understand that. I don't, however, see any comparable objections to GMO foods. The scaremongers are frothing over "genetic manipulation!!!111!!!eleventy!!!" when, in fact, humans have been genetically manipulating plants and animals (that is, selecting those that produce more and better fruits, seeds, meat, milk, etc.) since the beginnings of agriculture. It's hardly a new thing.

* - Not really.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Many chefs and fine diners have complained for years about the fact that the emphasis from growers has been on crop health and yield, as opposed to taste. But we have to feed more and more people on shrinking farmland. Profit is crucial in business (no, really, I swear).

There will always be hippies ranting and protesting about "Big Farmer" (pron. farmah). I understand that we need lots of food at a decent price, and genetically modifying crops are not a huge issue for me. We've been engineering crops since our first settlements. The modern modifications are usually awesome. Strong, sturdy, high yield crops. And you can't just decide it's unhealthy at a glance. Which is healthier, "natural" corn oil, or canola oil?

The "Monsanto is evil because of their use of GMO's" hippies and the "Monsanto is evil because they trample the little guy" Walmart haters, put together, make for a bigger tempest in the teapot. /Rant

 

[Dymanic]

If someone objected to insect proteins on what is technically* known as the "ick" basis, I could understand that. I don't, however, see any comparable objections to GMO foods. The scaremongers are frothing over "genetic manipulation!!!111!!!eleventy!!!" when, in fact, humans have been genetically manipulating plants and animals (that is, selecting those that produce more and better fruits, seeds, meat, milk, etc.) since the beginnings of agriculture. It's hardly a new thing.

* - Not really.

The "ick" basis is probably fairly close to what I'm talking about. A lot of people find direct manipulation of genes to be just plain creepy, and I don't find it to be a trivial matter to cast all of those concerns aside. Yes, we've been manipulating the genomes of plants and animals since the neolithic, but insertion of genes from one organism into a completely different type of organism very definitely IS a new thing, and while it has tremendous potential for solving certain problems, we really don't know the full range of problems it has the potential to create. Human intuition is not always a reliable indicator for what is and what is not a good idea; but then, it's not always wise to ignore it completely, either.

Google "spider goats" and see if that exceeds your own personal "ick" threshold.

As for FDA, I absolutely think it's vital that we have a science-based approach to evaluating the safety of the things we eat, but I'm not ready to accept FDA approval as the ultimate test. Science is not perfect either -- even when it's not attached to government agencies and therefore prone to political bias. I have a personal bias influencing my view here, as my mother was among those injured by the drug combination fenfluramine/phentermine ("fen-phen"), approved by the FDA in 1996 over the objections of that agency's medical officer, Leo Lutwak.

 

[Aepervius]

It may be. Indulge me for a bit, and I'll be interested to see if I end up agreeing.



For the sake of argument, assume for the moment that it might be possible to raise insects specifically for use in foods intended for human consumption, and to process the insect proteins in such a way as to render them safe. Would you insist that objections to this practice could only be entertained if they rested solely on the claim that it was somehow not safe?

It would still be required to be labelled as "protein of insectoid origin" or similar.
This is a different issue to what we have today as "accidental 100 insects parts in your flour packet"

As of now the only potential problem with GMO consumption , MIGHT be allergy and this is an issue GMO firm watch for, and not an issue with the current GMO crop available for food.

 

[Aepervius]

Many chefs and fine diners have complained for years about the fact that the emphasis from growers has been on crop health and yield, as opposed to taste. But we have to feed more and more people on shrinking farmland. Profit is crucial in business (no, really, I swear).

I agree with your first part, but is the second part even true in western countries ? I know for a fact that in europe we are detroying food (milk, crops) to maintain price, and subventionning farmer to stop growing stuff. As for north america arable surface don't seem to be an issue ATM.

 

[Aepervius]

If someone objected to insect proteins on what is technically* known as the "ick" basis, I could understand that. I don't, however, see any comparable objections to GMO foods. The scaremongers are frothing over "genetic manipulation!!!111!!!eleventy!!!" when, in fact, humans have been genetically manipulating plants and animals (that is, selecting those that produce more and better fruits, seeds, meat, milk, etc.) since the beginnings of agriculture. It's hardly a new thing.

* - Not really.

Whereas I agree with your meaning, your argument is wrong and I wish people would stop using it. It is flawed and obviously flawed.

Genetic manipulation allows for genom change you would never ever have in thousands of year of hybriding.

Try adding nuts gene to soy (*), or even tobacoe gene to salmon with hybriding. Or human gene to mouse or even jellyfish gene to pig.

Hybriding is a form of genetic manipulation which allows only gene which are within the same specie, or even genera. Gene manipulation can however pull in a LOT more than mere hybridisation can do.

(*) and this is an example which happened, and the company even tested than yes the soy was provocating allergy (and therefore abandonned the research) but this is an example of what could be a problem with GMO but not with hybridisation.

 

[Dymanic]

I agree with your first part, but is the second part even true in western countries ? I know for a fact that in europe we are detroying food (milk, crops) to maintain price, and subventionning farmer to stop growing stuff. As for north america arable surface don't seem to be an issue ATM.

The United States is blessed with more arable land than any other nation on earth. Still, only about one-fifth of our land area [ ] is used for crop production. Grazing land for livestock accounts for about one-fourth of the privately held land in the U.S. [ ] In spite of a growing population and increased demand for agricultural products, the land area under cultivation in this country has not increased. While advanced farming techniques, including irrigation and genetic manipulation of crops, has permitted an expansion of crop production in some areas of the country, there has been a decrease in other areas. In fact, some 3,000 acres of productive farmland are lost to development each day in this country. There was an 8% decline in the number of acres in farms over the last twenty years. In 1990, there were almost 987 million acres in farms in the U.S., that number was reduced to just under 943 million acres by 2000, and then reduced to 914 million acres in 2012.

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/landuse.html

My bold.

 

[Dymanic]

It would still be required to be labelled as "protein of insectoid origin" or similar.
This is a different issue to what we have today as "accidental 100 insects parts in your flour packet".

I agree. Yet -- if we assume that safety is not an issue -- what is the justification for requiring that labelling?