GM Rice is more healthful

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh yay! Conspiracy theorists! Can't you do any better than that?

http://www.suesupriano.com/article.php?st=9/11

This from the same people who like to feature Jeffrey M. Smith

There is tons of available research that you are welcome to peruse through that are far more dependable resources.

The greenies have plenty of money. Show some of their actual research regarding GM. All we have are conspiracies and lies (they even say GM food is untested).

 

[Jas]

Broccoli is GM, imho. I really don't see the difference between it and 'frankenfoods' (Gawd, that term is awful, as soon as someone uses that term they instantly lose all credibility).

I'm all for GM. I think they should come up with some for students...like vitamin enriched rice...something that's really cheap and requires minimal cooking time/effort.

 

[JAK]

Oh yay! Conspiracy theorists! Can't you do any better than that?

http://www.suesupriano.com/article.php?st=9/11

This from the same people who like to feature Jeffrey M. Smith

There is tons of available research that you are welcome to peruse through that are far more dependable resources.

The greenies have plenty of money. Show some of their actual research regarding GM. All we have are conspiracies and lies (they even say GM food is untested).

You seem to have ignored the crux of the post. GM aside, the trustworthiness of the "watchdogs" is suspect. Please explain why thalidomide birth defects, vioxx strokes/heart attacks, and x-ray treatment cancers should instill confidence in any food or drug "watchdog"? The "watchdogs" have clearly failed in the past. Why should GM watchdogs be any better?

The point is that promoting GM foods as safe is negligent. Some may be safe, and some may not. It may be years before the truth is known.

Consumers should be given a choice in the matter. GM foods should be labeled as such for the consumers to make a decision. To hide this fact shows a deviousness which brings forth the question: Why hide it? If you have nothing to fear, then you have nothing to hide. What is the GM industry afraid of?

You might try augmenting your one website by Googlin' on "GM foods banned". (Hmm ... lots of websites. Perhaps GM promoters do have something to fear.)

 

[CBL4]

The point is that promoting GM foods as safe is negligent.

Do you know what the Bt in these modified foods is? It is currently in wide spread use.

B. thuringiensis (commonly known as 'Bt') is an insecticidal bacterium, marketed worldwide for control of many important plant pests - mainly caterpillars of the Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) but also mosquito larvae, and simuliid blackflies that vector river blindness in Africa. Bt products represent about 1% of the total ‘agrochemical’ market (fungicides, herbicides and insecticides) across the world. The commercial Bt products are powders containing a mixture of dried spores and toxin crystals. They are applied to leaves or other environments where the insect larvae feed. The toxin genes have also been genetically engineered into several crop plants (see Agrobacterium).

http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/microbes/bt.htm

So much for untested.

Bt proteins has been used in many organic farms for over 50 years as a microbial pest control agent (MCPA). Bt proteins are allowed in organic farming as a insecticide because Bt is a natural, non-pathogenic bacterium that is found naturally in the soil. Bt has also been found to be safe to all higher animals tested.

http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html

Bt products are found to be safe for use in the environment and with mammals. The EPA (environmental protection agency) has not found any human health hazards related to using Bt. In fact the EPA has found Bt safe enough that it has exempted Bt from food residue tolerances, groundwater restrictions, endangered species labeling and special review requirements. Bt is often used near lakes, rivers and dwellings, and has no known effect on wildlife such as mammals, birds, and fish.

Humans exposed orally to 1000 mg/day for 3-5 days of Bt have showed no ill effects. Many tests have been conducted on test animals using different types of exposures. The results of the tests showed that the use of Bt causes few if any negative effects. Bt does not persist in the digestive systems of mammals.

Bt is found to be an eye irritant on test rabbits. There is very slight irritation from inhalation in test animals which may be caused by the physical rather than the biological properties of the Bt formulation tested.

Bt has not been shown to have any chronic toxicity or any carcinogenic effects. There are also no indication that Bt causes reproductive effects or birth defects in mammals.

Bt breaks down readily in the environment. Because of this Bt poses no threat to groundwater. Bt also breaks down under the ultraviolet (UV) light of the sun.

Even with such widespread use of Bt-based products in the past 50 years, only two incidents of repored allergic reaction have been reported to the EPA. In the first incident, it was concluded that the exposed individual was suffering from a previously diagnosed disease. The second involved a person that had a history of life-threatening food allergies.Upon investigation, it was found that the formulation of Bt also contained carbohydrate and preservatives which have been implicated in food allergy.

http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_safety.html


CBL

 

[JAK]

Do you know what the Bt in these modified foods is? It is currently in wide spread use.
http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/microbes/bt.htm

So much for untested.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html

http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_safety.html


CBL

I haven't verified the claims of the websites noted above, but Bt sounds impressive. Fifty years of positive results is excellent. As I said, some GM foods may be safe, and some may not be.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by JAK:
Seeds of Deception (Jeffrey M. Smith, 2003, ISBN#0-9729665-8-7) and Eating in the Dark (Kathleen Hart, 2003, ISBN#0-375-42070-3) present a variety of information regarding the FDA/biotech industry links and conflicts of interests. It further uncovers how "whistle blowers" were silenced, and how tumors appeared in test animals after consuming GM foods. Most damaging was the report of research scientists, Arpod and Susan Pusztai.

Ho Ho Ho, Arpad Pusztai!

"THE STUDY that sparked the furore over genetically modified food has failed the ultimate test of scientific credibility.
Research purporting to show that rats suffer ill-health when fed GM potatoes has been judged as seriously flawed and unworthy of being published by a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Referees used by The Lancet, one of Britain's leading medical journals, to
review the research have found that it has failed to prove a link between GM potatoes and intestinal disorders in the rats.

The referees - all experts in their own fields who judged the work
independently of each other - found the study to be defective in design, execution and interpretation.

Despite their assessments, however, The Lancet has decided to go ahead and publish the study this week, on the grounds that publication of even flawed research could be in the public interest.

However its editor, Richard Horton, faces a revolt by his own referees - who usually remain anonymous - if he does not make it clear that the results of the study by Dr Arpad Pusztai and Professor Stanley Ewen was deemed to be deeply flawed and its conclusions highly speculative and unsubstantiated.

One referee, Professor John Pickett, an authority on plant chemistry, is so outraged by the journal that he has decided to voice his concerns in
public"

And for those who are confident in the robustness of various government agencies to protect the public, can you say, "thalidomide"? or "VIOXX"? and any number of other gaffs from rushed deliveries of unsafe products? In the 1950s, x-ray treatments were given to cure severe acne. Years later, the victims of these treatments suffered thyroid and other forms of cancer. (Go a-Googlin' with "x-ray treatment acne cancer".)

Can you say "apples and oranges"? There is a huge difference between drug therapies and food stuffs. The FDA has declared that GM foods are not substantially different to conventionally produced foodstuffs. The drug therapies you've pointed too were novel developments.

The money is behind big labs, not the greenies. Historically, big money has touted the benefits of marketable products and rushed them to market. Opposition to such money splashes, historically, has been "grassroots," poorly organized, and poorly funded. This is grossly reminiscent of the situation with snake oil "medicine men" in the U.S. "american west" of the late-19th century.

Rubbish. GM is more strictly regulated than conventional means of food production, and certainly more than the snake oil trade of the late 19th century. Source.

"The EU itself acknowledges that biotech foods on the market pose no threat to human health. In a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, EU Ambassador to the United States acknowledged that biotech corn examined by its Scientific Committees "is as safe as conventional corn."


The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research has stated that, "Research on the GM plants and derived products so far developed and marketed... has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment... Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods." (DG Research Press Briefing, October 8, 2001)


In November 2000, the European Commission acknowledged that "no peer-reviewed scientific article reporting adverse effects on human health as a result of eating GM foods has appeared..." (Working Document of the European Commission, November 2000)

No one could describe the EU as being gung-ho when it comes to GM food. In fact it introduced a moratorium on the introduction of new GM varieties in spite of it's own conclusions that such a moratorium had no basis in scientific fact. So much for behemoth corporations steamrolling over grassroots opposition.

IMO, it is much too early to genetically re-engineer the planet.

Who has been suggesting that we "genetically re-engineer the planet"?

The point is that promoting GM foods as safe is negligent. Some may be safe, and some may not. It may be years before the truth is known.

Suggesting that the science behing GM food and it's resulting safety is suspect and ambigous is negligent and irresponsible. For instance the EU has concluded that GM food is probably safer than other foodstuffs because of, not in spite of, the molecular techniques used to produce it.

The USDA has concluded that GM food is not substantially different to other food. Do you disagree with that analysis? If so, why?

Consumers should be given a choice in the matter. GM foods should be labeled as such for the consumers to make a decision. To hide this fact shows a deviousness which brings forth the question: Why hide it? If you have nothing to fear, then you have nothing to hide. What is the GM industry afraid of?

GM food companies and producers are rightly apprehensive of pervasive ignorance being exploited to unjustly attack their product. For instance the anti-GM lobby are still using the discredited Pusztai study to attack GM technologies.

The USDA has concluded that there is no basis for the labelling of GM food. At least one
US state has staged a referendum on GM food labelling.

I haven't verified the claims of the websites noted above, but Bt sounds impressive. Fifty years of positive results is excellent. As I said, some GM foods may be safe, and some may not be.

So which one's may be safe, and which ones may not be, in your considered opinion?

 

[JAK]

Ho Ho Ho, Arpad Pusztai!

Can you say "apples and oranges"? There is a huge difference between drug therapies and food stuffs. The FDA has declared that GM foods are not substantially different to conventionally produced foodstuffs. The drug therapies you've pointed too were novel developments.
...

You appear to have missed the point of my post. I question any regulatory agency's ability to protect the public. The therapies I presented are clear examples of regulatory agencies failing to protect the public (an impossible task, BTW).

...
GM is more strictly regulated ...
...
For instance the EU has concluded ...
...
The USDA has concluded ...
...

Again, you appear to have missed the point of my post. I question any regulatory agency's ability to protect the public.

...
The USDA has concluded that there is no basis for the labelling of GM food. At least one
US state has staged a referendum on GM food labelling.

So which one's may be safe, and which ones may not be, in your considered opinion?

Safe or not, IMCO, the consumers should be given an opportunity to choose whether they eat GM foods or not. This reguires labeling GM ingredients as such.

Do you object to labeling? Why? Why does the GM industry need to hide GM ingredients from the consumer? Why does the GM industry need to be devious?

 

[Rob Lister]

You appear to have missed the point of my post. I question any regulatory agency's ability to protect the public. The therapies I presented are clear examples of regulatory agencies failing to protect the public (an impossible task, BTW).

Again, you appear to have missed the point of my post. I question any regulatory agency's ability to protect the public.

Safe or not, IMCO, the consumers should be given an opportunity to choose whether they eat GM foods or not. This reguires labeling GM ingredients as such.

Do you object to labeling? Why? Why does the GM industry need to hide GM ingredients from the consumer? Why does the GM industry need to be devious?

I need to first know if the labling requirements should extend to all hybrids? Or should we single out GM hybrids specifically? If so, for what reason?

 

[JAK]

I need to first know if the labling requirements should extend to all hybrids? Or should we single out GM hybrids specifically? If so, for what reason?

Good point. The direction of the food industry, at least in the U.S., has been to provide more information about ingredients. My choice would always be to provide more info for the consumer. However, because the labeling may then exceed the size of the product, having a website resource or toll free number, marked upon the label, where detailed product info could be found, would be an agreeable alternative. Another advantage would be for ensuring the info is timely (1 resource, 1 update, and it's realtime). This resource could also be used by the product manufacturer to tout the benefits of the ingredients, if so inclined.

As you and I know, most folks would never do the research, but the greenies would not seem to have a reasonable complaint at that point. If they care, the info is readily available.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by JAK:
You appear to have missed the point of my post. I question any regulatory agency's ability to protect the public. The therapies I presented are clear examples of regulatory agencies failing to protect the public (an impossible task, BTW).

I understand your point fully, it's just that I think it's completely wrong. You argued that the ability of regulatory agencies to assess the safety of GM food is suspect because of past failures to identify serious side effects with some drug therapies. You simply are not comparing like with like. New drug therapies are novel, and the principle that drugs, even those with a net beneficial effect, can induce adverse side affects, is well established. In contrast the USDA has ruled that GM foods are not substantially different from conventional types. The EU has gone as far as to state that GM food is probably safer than conventional foodstuffs. Have you a reasonable scientific argument against these conclusions, or are you going to stick the
genetic fallacy line of argument?

Safe or not, IMCO, the consumers should be given an opportunity to choose whether they eat GM foods or not. This reguires labeling GM ingredients as such.

Consumers in some US states are being given the opportunity to pass judgement on GM food. Referenda have been held in Oregon and California. In the absence of objective evidence that GM food is different then why would food containing GM ingredients be labelled as such? That the public might want this isn't a compelling argument, IMO. Ought every ill-informed and irrational whim be pandered to? For instance should ID or creationism be included on high school curricula because of popular pressure, and in spite of the overwhelming scientific consensus?

Do you object to labeling? Why?

On present evidence there is no reason that food containing GM ingredients ought to be labelled to indicate this fact. There is simply no reason that producers should be required to do so.

Why does the GM industry need to be devious?

How is the GM industry being devious? In the US at least there is no legal obligation on producers to label GM produce. There's no scientific justification for it either.

If you find deviousness to be so objectionable then why don't you inquire of the anti-GM lobby as to why they continue to use the discredited Pusztai study as evidence? Why do you think that this anti-GM pressure group was less than truthful when it came to touting the benefits of organic food?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

If you find deviousness to be so objectionable then why don't you inquire of the anti-GM lobby as to why they continue to use the discredited Pusztai study as evidence? Why do you think that this anti-GM pressure group was less than truthful when it came to touting the benefits of organic food?

Good Question.

On present evidence there is no reason that food containing GM ingredients ought to be labelled to indicate this fact. There is simply no reason that producers should be required to do so.

How is the GM industry being devious? In the US at least there is no legal obligation on producers to label GM produce. There's no scientific justification for it either.

If they had to label GM foods, then it would be an obligation to label any foods "altered" by humans. It would make more sense to label food the "old fashioned" less precise way of mixing numerous genes to get the result wanted (seedless fruit, cauliflower, etc.).

Originally posted by JAK


but the greenies would not seem to have a reasonable complaint at that point

What point? In their lies and misleading conspiracy theories? I feel they are misguided and don't understand the harm they do. I'm trying to understand why they do what they do. To get people to give them money to spread their misinformation/"truth"? Rather unethical way to run a "business". They LIE. Blatantly lie about the testing of GM foods. That's no mistake. Any half-wit can check to see the testing that GM foods undergo, so it's not that the "greenies" don't know about the testing. It's no honest mistake. It's a lie. If they are willing to lie so blatantly...

It's like if I tried to ban cars that ran on solar power. We are talking about RADIATION here people!

 

[JAK]

I understand your point fully, it's just that I think it's completely wrong.

In contrast the USDA has ruled ...

The EU has gone as far as to state ...

I'm sorry, but you clearly are not acknowledging the point. Humans are fallible. Omniscience is not known to exist in any human today on our planet. The long term effects of biotechnology are unknown. To assert that anything is ubiquitously safe, cannot be substantiated.

Rather than try to convince me of the trustworthiness of any august regulatory bodies, try a "pro/con" approach: "Yes, nothing is absolutely certain; however, these are the great and important benefits that this technology holds for the future - (yada, yada, yada). And here are the dangers for our future if this technology is not allowed to continue - (yada, yada, yada)."

...
Have you a reasonable scientific argument against these conclusions, or are you going to stick the
genetic fallacy line of argument?

I believe you may have erred here, too. I have asserted that regulatory bodies have failed to protect the public in the past. I provided 3 concrete examples which can readily be verified on the internet. That is not a genetic fallacy.

Further, it directly relates to "... a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise)" (from your noted website). Experts you tout as reliable are not reliable to me.

Which other statement of mine do you believe was a genetic fallacy?

...
Consumers in some US states are being given the opportunity to pass judgement on GM food. Referenda have been held in Oregon and California. In the absence of objective evidence that GM food is different then why would food containing GM ingredients be labelled as such? That the public might want this isn't a compelling argument, IMO.

Huh? Have you done much reading in economic theory - "supply and demand"? When you sell a product, it is to satisfy a demand for its benefits. If there is NO demand, why force it upon the consumer? Is there anything of benefit about biotech for the consumer? What is it? SELL biotech - don't defend it.

But if there is nothing to benefit the consumer, then you've got a serious problem. "The ol' meat 'n potatoes suit me jus' fine. An' gramma and grampa lived to me 102 eatin' jus' like I am. Why bother with these new fangled bio-techie stuff anyway?"

...
Ought every ill-informed and irrational whim be pandered to? For instance should ID or creationism be included on high school curricula because of popular pressure, and in spite of the overwhelming scientific consensus?

When you sell a product, you must pander to the ill-informed and irrational public. Those who pander best achieve market growth.

...
On present evidence there is no reason that food containing GM ingredients ought to be labelled to indicate this fact. There is simply no reason that producers should be required to do so.

You seem unwilling to accept the reason. When information is withheld, people begin wondering "Why is it withheld?" and worry that something dangerous is being hidden from them. People construe the lack of forthrightness and openness as being devious and untrustworthy. Neither of those are good for marketing.

Your best approach is to be open and provide copious scientific detail. The eyes of most people will quickly glaze over, and they'll decide it's beyond them. At that point, they'll talk to their friends. If their friends say, "Yeah, I've been eating that bio-stuff for years and it ain't hurt me none," then you've survived the gauntlet. If the biotech advantage provides a price advantage, that, too, will help you sail through the gauntlet.

...
If you find deviousness to be so objectionable then why don't you inquire of the anti-GM lobby as to why they continue to use the discredited Pusztai study as evidence?
...

Why should I bother? The foods I've been eating for decades have been just fine (or at least I think so). Why should I take the trouble (and I emphasize trouble) to personally research biotech?

Shane, you appear to be trying to solve a marketing problem with logic. Most good salesmen will tell you that "logic" is the wrong approach. Find out where the consumers' emotions are. Find out how biotech can overcome something they fear or fulfill one of their desires.

...
What point? In their lies and misleading conspiracy theories? I feel they are misguided and don't understand the harm they do.

Harm to whom? Are we talking corporate profits? Or are we talking loss of a benefit to the consumer?

...
I'm trying to understand why they do what they do. To get people to give them money to spread their misinformation/"truth"?

Could be blind fear.

...
They LIE. Blatantly lie about the testing of GM foods. That's no mistake. Any half-wit can check to see the testing that GM foods undergo ...

Okay. I qualify Show me where I "... can check to see the testing that GM foods undergo."

 

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.whybiotech.com/html/pdf/plant_bt_in_canada.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/socialism_2000/pages/genetic.html#Food_safety

http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?trackid=2142&id=2603#2618

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., an Iowa-based seed company, transformed soybeans to produce a protein from Brazil nuts. When a scientist at the University of Nebraska discovered that the protein was likely to cause allergies, Pioneer Hi-Bred dropped the project.

These foods are tested. Thus, if an allergen is potentially present the food doesn't make it to the consumers.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/defend.html

Traditional (non GM) crops have flown under the radar though:

. "If you take one gene from a soybean and put it into corn, it's not going to make corn any less safe," says Channapatna S. Prakash, the director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University. He points out that triticale, a widely planted hybrid of wheat and rye, was produced by mating the two crops, adding tens of thousands of genes from rye to wheat. "Traditional varieties were always bred like this, and we never tested them for anything."

Some genetically modified foods, far from causing allergies, might actually make them less problematic.

Check any country's laws. GM foods have to be tested. Then there are field trials, etc. etc.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by JAK:
I'm sorry, but you clearly are not acknowledging the point. Humans are fallible. Omniscience is not known to exist in any human today on our planet. The long term effects of biotechnology are unknown. To assert that anything is ubiquitously safe, cannot be substantiated.

Once again, yes I am acknowledging your point insofar as I'm pointing out why it's wrong. Nobody is claiming that regulatory bodies are infallible. But to deduce that because the regualtory bodies are made up of human beings, then GM food is therefore suspect is wrong. What it displays on your part is an utter ignorance of millenia of agriculture and genetic modification of plants and animals. If plants modified using modern molecular techniques are suspect, then all plants and animals that form part of the human food chain have to be regarded as such, even the sort grown by kaftan wearing tree-huggers. But the assumption of safety for the former is greater since modern GM technologies are more precise and more regulated than traditional breeding techniques. That is the scientific justification for the conclusions of regulatory bodies the world over. If you have a counterpoint to that with a rational scientific basis then do share it with us.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Shane Costello
...
Consumers in some US states are being given the opportunity to pass judgement on GM food. Referenda have been held in Oregon and California. In the absence of objective evidence that GM food is different then why would food containing GM ingredients be labelled as such? That the public might want this isn't a compelling argument, IMO.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Huh? Have you done much reading in economic theory - "supply and demand"? When you sell a product, it is to satisfy a demand for its benefits. If there is NO demand, why force it upon the consumer? Is there anything of benefit about biotech for the consumer? What is it? SELL biotech - don't defend it.

Yes I am aware of the rudiments of supply and demand, I'm just at a loss as to how it's relevant to my original point. As for the benefits of GM to the consumer this should be apparent to you, since you seem to be so au fait with the basic economic theory. If Chinese cotton and rice farmers can utilise GM technologies to increase yields and decrease costs, then won't that have a knock on effect to the consumer?

Further, it directly relates to "... a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise)" (from your noted website). Experts you tout as reliable are not reliable to me.

You'd have to present a compelling and objective case as to why you had problem's with the expert's reliability. In the absence of that I'd say you were displaying classic symptoms of confirmation bias.

But if there is nothing to benefit the consumer, then you've got a serious problem. "The ol' meat 'n potatoes suit me jus' fine. An' gramma and grampa lived to me 102 eatin' jus' like I am. Why bother with these new fangled bio-techie stuff anyway?"

Anecdotal evidence. Grandma and Grandpa might well have lived to 102, but then John Boy might have had the pleasure of emtying their colostomy bags on a daily basis. This may or may not have been related to a century of meat and potatoes for breakfast, dinner and tea. That's why anecdotal evidence, especially hypothetical anecdotal evidence, is as useful as an ashtray on a Harley Davidson.

When you sell a product, you must pander to the ill-informed and irrational public. Those who pander best achieve market growth.

I wasn't talking about the marketplace. As it stands food producers can voluntarily label their produce GM-free, or not as the case may be. The companies can pander to public as they see fit. Compelling companies to do so because of public pressure, and in spite of scientific evidence is a different matter. The situation is analagous to creationism and school curricula. As I understand it private schools in the US can teach ID and creationism as established scientific theory and fact. Would you support similar moves in state schools, because the public favoured such a move?

You seem unwilling to accept the reason. When information is withheld, people begin wondering "Why is it withheld?" and worry that something dangerous is being hidden from them. People construe the lack of forthrightness and openness as being devious and untrustworthy. Neither of those are good for marketing.

Marketing departments are there to overcome such things. They can weigh the pros and cons of labelling without any input or compulsion from the government. If consumers want to avoid anything that is not clearly marked as GM free then that is their choice.

Your best approach is to be open and provide copious scientific detail. The eyes of most people will quickly glaze over, and they'll decide it's beyond them. At that point, they'll talk to their friends. If their friends say, "Yeah, I've been eating that bio-stuff for years and it ain't hurt me none," then you've survived the gauntlet. If the biotech advantage provides a price advantage, that, too, will help you sail through the gauntlet.

So should we therefore provide open and copious scientific detail on naturally occuring toxins in food?. The reason you don't hear such a clamour for that is because certain vested interests such as the organic lobby don't want it too widely known that "natural" is an adjective that can be used to describe a toxin. For once science is on their side, since these toxins occur at levels that pose no risk to human health. Ditto GM foods, which is why labelling in either case would be wholly inappropriate. As it stands acreage of GM crops is booming. I'm assuming that these crops are later sold for money, suggesting that consumer reticence is more imagined than real.

What I really find comical is the skepticism you have for the findings of regulatory, medical and scientific bodies, and the credence you give to anecdotal evidence. Your friends might tell you that they can drink a whole bottle of Jack Daniels in one sitting with no harm done, and from what I can see you'd take them at their word. However if studies showed a link between binge drinking and spousal abuse, you'd find it a bit suss because of, um, thalidomide, even though your friend's other half has fresh bruises every time he knocks back a full bottle of bourbon.

Why should I bother? The foods I've been eating for decades have been just fine (or at least I think so). Why should I take the trouble (and I emphasize trouble) to personally research biotech?

You've already gone to the trouble of reading "Seeds of Deception", and felt well informed enough to share what you felt were relevant excerpts of the book with us. Or have you been quoting from a book you didn't actually read?

If you are going to opine on the benefits of biotech, or lack thereof, then you really should make the effort to do a bit of research on the subject. It'll save those of us who have made he effort the bother of telling you why Arpad Pusztai is an ass, and why anyone who cites him or his research in arguments against biotech has an agenda.

Shane, you appear to be trying to solve a marketing problem with logic. Most good salesmen will tell you that "logic" is the wrong approach. Find out where the consumers' emotions are. Find out how biotech can overcome something they fear or fulfill one of their desires.

What marketing problem? GM is booming. So while you and your spud lovin' and consonan' droppin' Grandad where trying to feel the public's pain about GM food, it would appear your fears were missplaced.

 

[JAK]

Once again, yes I am acknowledging your point insofar as I'm pointing out why it's wrong.
...

Shane, let’s cut to the chase. You appear to profess knowledge of logic and fallacies. (You wield argumentum ad hominem quite handily.) So, let’s reduce this to set theory, the foundation of syllogisms:

1. There is the set of all consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies; I will call this Set A.
2. There is the set of all KNOWN consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies; I will call this Set B. Set B is a subset of Set A.
3. The subset area within Set A not covered by Set B is the set of all UNKNOWN consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies; I will call this Set C.

Do you assert that ALL consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies within the GM industry exist within Set B – the known consequences? (In other words, all consequences are known consequences.)

Or do you acknowledge that some consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies within the GM industry exist within Set C – the unknown consequences? (In other words, some consequences are unknown.)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

That is why they are tested. There is a reduction in "unknowns" by using GM over "conventional" methods. That is one of the reasons GM is better.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by JAK:
Shane, let’s cut to the chase. You appear to profess knowledge of logic and fallacies. (You wield argumentum ad hominem quite handily.) So, let’s reduce this to set theory, the foundation of syllogisms:

Where have I used ad homs?

So, let’s reduce this to set theory, the foundation of syllogisms:

1. There is the set of all consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies; I will call this Set A.
2. There is the set of all KNOWN consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies; I will call this Set B. Set B is a subset of Set A.
3. The subset area within Set A not covered by Set B is the set of all UNKNOWN consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies; I will call this Set C.

Do you assert that ALL consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies within the GM industry exist within Set B – the known consequences? (In other words, all consequences are known consequences.)

Or do you acknowledge that some consequences of all human behaviors, activities, and methodologies within the GM industry exist within Set C – the unknown consequences? (In other words, some consequences are unknown.)

I've explained this time and time again. Either it is obtuseness on your part, or a genuine lack of understanding of relevent subject matter that has you conducting the debate using abstract mathematical theory. This is not necessary given the scientific precedence and facts to hand. But if it aids your understanding of my position then I'll bite, but first some background;

The genetic modification of the plants and animals that contribute to the human food supply is not new. In fact mankind has been engaged in it for millenia. What is novel is the utilisation of modern molecular techniques to do this. These technologies are more precise and predictable than conventional breeding. However it does not follow that conventional breeding is inherently dangerous. We have 6000 years of agriculture to tell us otherwise. Since these techniques improve on pre-existing technologies and strains IMO we cannot use you subset theory to evaluate these novel technologies without also evaluating more established ones. For simplicity's sake I'll use "conventional" and "GM" when utilising the subset theory.

Set A describes all aspects of conventional food production. Subset B describes the known consequences of conventional food production. Subset B will be large considering we've been growing and raising things for food for so long, and as a consequence subset C will be very small.

It therefore follows that the subset ratios for GM food will be similar for GM technologies. If anything the GM subset B will be larger and subset C smaller because modern GM uses more precise and predictable techniques than conventional food production. But since subset C for conventional food is small to begin with, the difference will be negligable.

This is nothing that I haven't pointed out before, btw.

 

[shecky]

Just to stir up the sh|t, Here's a link I found today.

Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food

Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.

According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh pish. We covered that in another thread already. I'll try to dig it up again.

Okay, I think that was something else.

On this from your link though:

Monsanto last night dismissed the abnormalities in rats as meaningless and due to chance

And previously:

Independent scientists in Europe have concluded the study was appropriately conducted according to internationally accepted methods, and found no evidence of harmful effects of MON 863 maize. After a thorough analysis of study methodology and results, European regulatory authorities have concluded that MON 863 will have “no adverse effects on human or animal health.” The safety of MON 863 grain has also been confirmed by other regulatory authorities in the US, Canada, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Russia, Australia/New Zealand and Mexico.

http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=8845

Because of the controversy his claims aroused, an independent audit committee reviewed his results and the outcome was published on the Rowett web site on the 28th of October, 1998. The report made four substantial criticisms of the work, and in addition, pointed out three ways in which the claims made on television conflicted with his data. Dr Pusztai rejected some of the conclusions of the audit committee, but the committee was not persuaded by his response to alter their conclusion.


No reputable scientist I know believes that Dr Pusztai's conclusions are general for the products of GM crops.

http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/comment/0053.htm

It seems the claims by this Pusztai guy has come into question before. I can't see it being different now.

Of course the media loves controversay, and the Putz loves media attention. It's no surprise to see this article slamming GM foods on the Putz's baseless claims.

 

[Shane Costello]

What Eos said. Try and keep up.