The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Exactly. It caters to the stupid.
Monsanto
- Thread starter Bodhi Dharma Zen
- Start date
Exactly. It caters to the stupid.
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
5 Top Myths Busted:
Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile.
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
Myth 3: Any contamination with GMOs makes organic food non-organic.
Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.
Myth 5: Most seeds these days are genetically modified.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...ve-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile.
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
Myth 3: Any contamination with GMOs makes organic food non-organic.
Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.
Myth 5: Most seeds these days are genetically modified.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...ve-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
Skeletor
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 301
That link is excellent, although I'm sure it puts NPR squarely in the camp of Big Ag. So much in food production, from crops to even animals, depend on breeding hybrids in order to maintain consistency in the end result. Most broiler chickens (the kind you buy in the freezer case) aren't genetically engineered monstrosities, they're just hybridized through three generations. You can't take one of the chickens intended for consumption and turn around expecting their progeny to get the same result.
Susheel
Illuminator
Qayak, I am merely using your list of myths as a stepping stone to add some information in this discussion. 
I was dumb struck by "farmer activists" who came to me with this accusation and insisted that the mythical terminator gene was is play in all GM crops. On closer questioning, I realised that these farmers did not even have the basic knowledge about the difference between hybrids and varieties and kept insisting that varietal seeds of cotton are no longer available. When it was pointed to them that packets og GM hybrids of cotton in Inid come with a smaller pack of non GM varieties to be grown as refugia in their GM fields they gave me a balank stare. I also gave them the addresses of a whole bunch of state funded agricultural universities and organisations developing and distributing non GM varieties of cotton. In fact they contradicted themselves a day later when they claimed to have a thousand acres growing non GM local varieties of cotton that matched the performance of GM Cotton.
As in all hybrids second generation GM cotton seeds are not as virile so farmers prefer to get new seeds. Hopwever there are some who resort to "ratooning" and I know of farmers who have got upto three yields from a single planting using this process.
Absolute bull crap again. Instances of action against farmers were primarily against those who knew what they were doing. Random wind blown pollen does not provide you with either the density of GM crops found in the the suspect fields nor do they get distributed as evenly in a field.
This was taken a step further by anti GMO activists in India when they claimed that Bt cotton had tainted mango trees growing nearby. I pointed out that this was akin to stating that my retriever bitch will have kittens since my neighbour has a whole bunch of cats wandering around.
In India many small farmers did and still do. It is a question of whether they are growing varieties or hybrids. It makes sense to do so for the former, while it may not be viable for the latter. In fact the GM eggplant developed under the project I am involved in has 16 varieties developed by various state funded universities from which farmers can save seeds from their yield for the next planting. In fact remarkably someone on this very forum had actually confronted me with a lie by the activist Vandana Shiva (she was a nuclear physicist) stating that farmers in India are arrested for saving seeds form their yield and challenged me to call her a liar. I reiterat, she lies through her teeth. There is a famous hagiographic documentary on herwhere she begins by statin farmers in state of Kerala who committed suicide because of the advent of GM crops into the country. The only GM crop in India is cotton and absolutely no cotton is grown in this state.
Another young activist came to me at a recent agri tec exhibition here wanting a "discussion" stating that he was a young "organic" farmer and his mother was a biotechnologist and the whole family was anti GM. He began by stating how GM rice was devastating the land and turining it untenable for any other crop. I was dumb struck and informed him that there is no GM crop presently grown in India part from cotton and the Eggplant, if released would be the first GM food crop in India. He refused to believe this until I provided him with proof that not only is there no GM Rice in India, but also that GM rice (Golden Rice) is still in the development stage. Then came the accusation that the Bt gene was from a lizard and so on. It was then that I realised the outright lies being spread around by the activists to instill fear.
In fact Cerallini's first flawed study suggested that the Bt gene lead to impotence...ooooh. What could be more fearsome than that in a predominantly patriarchal profession in the country.
I was dumb struck by "farmer activists" who came to me with this accusation and insisted that the mythical terminator gene was is play in all GM crops. On closer questioning, I realised that these farmers did not even have the basic knowledge about the difference between hybrids and varieties and kept insisting that varietal seeds of cotton are no longer available. When it was pointed to them that packets og GM hybrids of cotton in Inid come with a smaller pack of non GM varieties to be grown as refugia in their GM fields they gave me a balank stare. I also gave them the addresses of a whole bunch of state funded agricultural universities and organisations developing and distributing non GM varieties of cotton. In fact they contradicted themselves a day later when they claimed to have a thousand acres growing non GM local varieties of cotton that matched the performance of GM Cotton.
As in all hybrids second generation GM cotton seeds are not as virile so farmers prefer to get new seeds. Hopwever there are some who resort to "ratooning" and I know of farmers who have got upto three yields from a single planting using this process.
Absolute bull crap again. Instances of action against farmers were primarily against those who knew what they were doing. Random wind blown pollen does not provide you with either the density of GM crops found in the the suspect fields nor do they get distributed as evenly in a field.
This was taken a step further by anti GMO activists in India when they claimed that Bt cotton had tainted mango trees growing nearby. I pointed out that this was akin to stating that my retriever bitch will have kittens since my neighbour has a whole bunch of cats wandering around.
In India many small farmers did and still do. It is a question of whether they are growing varieties or hybrids. It makes sense to do so for the former, while it may not be viable for the latter. In fact the GM eggplant developed under the project I am involved in has 16 varieties developed by various state funded universities from which farmers can save seeds from their yield for the next planting. In fact remarkably someone on this very forum had actually confronted me with a lie by the activist Vandana Shiva (she was a nuclear physicist) stating that farmers in India are arrested for saving seeds form their yield and challenged me to call her a liar. I reiterat, she lies through her teeth. There is a famous hagiographic documentary on herwhere she begins by statin farmers in state of Kerala who committed suicide because of the advent of GM crops into the country. The only GM crop in India is cotton and absolutely no cotton is grown in this state.
Another young activist came to me at a recent agri tec exhibition here wanting a "discussion" stating that he was a young "organic" farmer and his mother was a biotechnologist and the whole family was anti GM. He began by stating how GM rice was devastating the land and turining it untenable for any other crop. I was dumb struck and informed him that there is no GM crop presently grown in India part from cotton and the Eggplant, if released would be the first GM food crop in India. He refused to believe this until I provided him with proof that not only is there no GM Rice in India, but also that GM rice (Golden Rice) is still in the development stage. Then came the accusation that the Bt gene was from a lizard and so on. It was then that I realised the outright lies being spread around by the activists to instill fear.
In fact Cerallini's first flawed study suggested that the Bt gene lead to impotence...ooooh. What could be more fearsome than that in a predominantly patriarchal profession in the country.
And by your ability to distinguish between one product and another. If you're going to be plunking down the big bucks for the prestige value of sporting a fancy designer shirt, one of the things about that shirt that will be of most interest to you is the label. No?
In the context of this discussion, another limitation is what the FDA approves. A few posts down from the one you just quoted, I observed that in 1996 the FDA (you know, the Food and Drug Administration) approved "fen-phen", a product which ended up causing heart damage to a large number of people. This would seem to raise questions as to the validity of regarding that agency as the ultimate authority on what is safe and what is not, but I can't help but notice that my observation has elicited not even one response.
Susheel
Illuminator
Well, FDA is composed of human being and as such there could be mistakes made. It is natural. However, did they then institute a mechanism to ensure that this did not happen again? A regulatory authority is necessary and while every now and then they may goof, but they have to ensure that such goof ups are not repeated.
You are mistaken. There was no such product as "fen-phen" for the FDA to approve. The name refers to a treatment regimen that used two drugs, each approved separately by the FDA: fenfluramine and phentermine. However, the combination was an "off label" use and not approved by the FDA. Fenfluramine was found to cause heart problems and removed from the market. Phentermine is still around, but not prescribed much as far as I know.
Redux, a derivative of fenfluramine, and the "fen" part of "fen-phen," was only sold for two years before being withdrawn.
If your claim is that the FDA shouldn't be an arbiter of "safe," whom do you suggest as a replacement? Or, if the claim is that there can be no real "safe," then we should probably go with, "as safe as it is practical to be."
A link to the history of "fen-phen": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/fenphen.html
Susheel
Illuminator
You think that the genetically modified goats in research institution are kept under the same conditions as goats in a family run barn? How naive is that.
I dont know about where you come from, but experimental GMO crops in India are grown under strict supervision and once their need is done they are burned. Workers are not allowed to take any home even for consumption. They may not do this with goats, but I am sure that they will be kept in isolation until the end of their days and definitely not sent to some farm to run around and play.
I would suggest you read up on the regulatory safety requirements for LMO research in your country. You will be surprised to see how stringent they are.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Again , it was caught before it went to the market, but by adding gene from various species you could run into adding allergene to something which originally did not have it. That's a relatively minor risk as it is watched over. But it is not a "no risk".
Furthermore it is not always about risk, it is sometimes about belief.
Only insofar it is not legally imposed. But it could be voted in.
No but again you are intentionally adding additional details to confuse the issue. The issue is that some people believe they want to be informed if there is GMO in their food, jsut like some other consumer wants to be informed if there are animal fats in it, or if the animal was bled kosher or whatnot. Those are fully irrational issues yes, but you intentionally ignore that people want to have choice and not forcefully removed from them.
Religious belief was used by me as an example.
Again and again we are going to a big problem : It does not matter TO YOU. You all seem to say "if it does not matter to me and make no difference scientifically then everybody should do what I say".
Well no duh. Whereas I agree with you on the form, I eat GMO without a problem, you keep ignoring that it is not what the people wants. Or at least some people. If the number of people is great enough and politics follow up, it will be come the rule of law , destipe not being rational.
The bottom line is while we both agree , you have to recognize that we may not have the last word if consumer think they ened to be informed and are in big number enough.
I think homeopathy makes more harm than good, you might think the same. And still it is not up to us despite homeopathy being no better than placebo, it is up to the local regulatory body to allow/disallow homeopathy.
SAme with weapon really, whether one is against or for gun carrying in public, it is the majority which decide if it is allowed.
Not quite 100% correct. Usually GM food are only done from 1 type of seed , not multiple. So anotehr type of seed could be actually tastier than the GMO used variety type.
But the "traditional" mass farming has the same problem, they often use variety for the quantity produced, not the quality or taste.
Well I got used to it, but maybe it is my french blood and my habit to surrender.
(just kidding I simply came to accept it because it is unimportant to fight against it ).
You are mixing stuff. Creationism has real harm. Letting some people refuse to eat anything labelled GMO due to belief has no harm.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Yes. So the label tells me "Polo", just like the label on a bag of seeds says "Monsanto".
Susheel
Illuminator
I think another major myth is that the introduction of GM crops means that non GM and "organic" varieties will cease to exist. I cant for the life of me understand why the non-GM lobby use this as an opportunity to establish an industry for non GM seeds and crops (organically or conventionally grown), and labelled "100% Non GM" and sell these to the supposedly huge market out there? Despite being a supporter of biotechnology and GM, I would definitely pounce on a business opportunity of this kind.
Could there be a fear among the organic lobby that their claims of economic viability and sustainability through organic farming may be shown to fall way short?
Could there be a fear among the organic lobby that their claims of economic viability and sustainability through organic farming may be shown to fall way short?
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
Not to do with crops but something I recently learned:
In order to up the survivability of fish used to stock lakes for sport fishing in British Columbia, GM fish are used and they are all female. (I think the person who told me this, my step daughter who does this for a living, also said the fish were sterile so they did not waste energy on reproduction, all the energy goes into growing. That is also the reason they are all female. They can't get the sex drive out of the males! But don't quote me on the 'sterile' claim just yet. I will confirm.)
In order to up the survivability of fish used to stock lakes for sport fishing in British Columbia, GM fish are used and they are all female. (I think the person who told me this, my step daughter who does this for a living, also said the fish were sterile so they did not waste energy on reproduction, all the energy goes into growing. That is also the reason they are all female. They can't get the sex drive out of the males! But don't quote me on the 'sterile' claim just yet. I will confirm.)
Susheel
Illuminator
I will have to do some research, but I am quite sure that there are no GM living organisms other than certain approved crops that have been approved for release and distribution. Not a marine biologist, but is there some way of ensuring sterile female fish through conventional breeding. And fish are pretty dicey creatures that way. There are quite a few species that change sex when required.
And if it is being done, this may be illegal.
Susheel
Illuminator
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
The last part would be my guess.
The anti-GMO nutters are always going on about how farmers can get the same crop yields using non-GMO seeds and "organic" growing methods. Except the people who make these claims seem to live in city high rises, and have never set foot on a real farm. But they somehow know more than actual farmers.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Uhhh... no, I never said that.
What I did say is that, to 'guarantee' your crops are 100% GMO free, you'd have to leave some sort of space between GMO and non-GMO fields. (I'm not sure how far wind-blown pollen or seeds can travel... I suggested a 100 yard buffer.)
Who pays for that buffer space? After all, its potentially valuable farm land, and it has to lay unused. And who will police it to ensure some farmer doesn't try to sneak some extra crops onto that unused land?
Or do you allow potential contamination (i.e. "this was grown from non-GM seed, but we can't guarantee that some seeds drifted from the neighbor's yard")? If so, how much contamination is acceptable, and how do you test for it?
Again, despite what some pro-labeling people are suggesting, its not just as simple as slapping a "GMO" label on the package... you first need to define what "GM-free" means (which is not as easy as it sounds... in the case of "acceptable contamination" above, or of second generation usage; e.g. livestock fed GM food); then you need the farmers and manufacturers to build the infrastructure to keep GM and non-GM foods separate (which introduces inefficiencies and drives up costs). Finally, you need the government to step in to ensure that everyone is following those rules. (Which of course increases government bureaucracy.)
After having been previously approved by the FDA. It is merely one item from a rather lengthy list of drugs which were also approved and later withddrawn.
The FDA -- adequately funded -- might be about the best we can manage as far as insuring "safety" through government policy. What I was really getting at, though, is that in the discussions here, I'm seeing frequent instances of an argument from authority in the form of what might be called the "appeal to FDA approval fallacy". It's proably worth at least mentioning that the current Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA, Michael Taylor, was formerly Monsanto's Vice President for Public Policy.
The introduction of a new drug is always going to be a matter of weighing potential risks against potential benefits. Something along the lines of "as safe it is practical to be, subject to revision on the input of new information" might be reasonably considered to be an acceptable standard. Ultimately, the only way to know for sure whether unintended consequences will emerge once a drug is in widespread use in the general population is to release it for use in the general population, maintain "postmarketing surveillance", and keep your fingers crossed. If you end up losing that gamble, you pull the drug from the market, do whatever you can for those unfortunates who were adversely affected, and try to adjust the system to improve your chances next time. End of story.
The introduction of never-before-seen organisms into the environment seems to call for a much stricter standard, not the least reason being that they cannot simply be "recalled". Painful lessons learned from experiences with "invasive species" clearly can be applied here. For example, though Kudzu is not without some useful properties, it has some other properties which are not so desireable, and which did not become apparent until the species was well established. The introduction of genes from one organism into the genome of another has tremendous potential for solving certain problems (as I said earlier); but -- just as has been the case with the introduction of certain (unmodified) non-native species -- we cannot always easily anticipate the full range of problems it has the potential to create. The "postmarketing surveillance" sort of approach (or the "anything goes" approach) to the introduction of non-native species has produced spectacular failures. Along with the power we now wield to directly manipulate the genomes of organisms comes the power to unleash frankenflora and frankenfauna with devastating unforseen consequences. "As safe as it is practical to be" doesn't strike me as a level of caution commensurate with the level of potential risk.
You might start with a viewing of the film, "Jurassic Park".
I kinda get a chuckle out of this. You start by saying, "No, I never said [that the whole idea of labeling products "GMO-free" is a nonstarter because there is no practical way of containing GMO strains once they have been introduced or to differentiate between GMO and non-GMO] -- and then you proceed with arguments intended to show, once again, just how impractical it would be to try to do that.
Susheel
Illuminator
You are joking right?